The Modern Slavery Act 2015 represents a significant consolidation of UK
law, designed to strengthen responses to slavery, servitude, forced labour and
trafficking. It merged earlier legislation into a coherent statute, supported
by more precise definitions and a more structured enforcement framework. The
Act reflects recognition of the evolving nature of exploitation in global
supply chains and domestic contexts. It sought to modernise the legal
landscape, ensuring that responses remained aligned with emerging threats and
international human rights standards.
A crucial ambition of the Act was to integrate preventative, punitive
and protective measures within a single legislative framework. Earlier legal
instruments, including the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants) Act
2004, had fragmented approaches, contributing to inconsistencies in
prosecutions and victim identification. By adopting a unified approach,
legislators aimed to enhance the clarity of criminal offences, expand
sentencing options, and ensure that victims’ needs were addressed alongside law
enforcement priorities.
Scholars have debated whether the Act’s consolidation fully resolves
earlier conceptual ambiguities. Mantouvalou (2018) argues that while the Act
clarifies offences, it retains a narrow focus on criminal justice rather than
addressing structural labour market vulnerabilities that enable exploitation.
Similarly, O’Connell Davidson (2015) contends that modern slavery legislation
risks oversimplifying complex coercive relationships by privileging
criminalisation over socioeconomic analysis. These critiques highlight that the
Act, though symbolically significant, may insufficiently confront the systemic
drivers of exploitation.
International influences shaped the Act’s final form. Key international
agreements, such as the UN Palermo Protocol and the Council of Europe
Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings, showcased the need
for domestic systems to adopt more robust victim-centred structures. These
instruments encouraged states to treat exploitation as a multi-dimensional
challenge requiring cross-border cooperation, enhanced identification
strategies and stronger accountability mechanisms for private sector practices
contributing to modern slavery.
Despite its strengths, the Act has provoked debate regarding its
practical effectiveness. Concerns have been raised about the allocation of
resources to enforcement bodies, underreporting of exploitation, and limited
prosecution success rates. Additionally, the supply chain transparency
provisions have been criticised for lacking meaningful sanctions, raising
questions about the incentives for compliance. These debates demonstrate that
while the Act marked substantial progress, it remains a framework in evolution,
requiring continued legislative refinement and institutional commitment.
Criminal Offences and Legal Definitions
The Act’s early sections define the core criminal offences: slavery,
servitude, forced or compulsory labour, and human trafficking. Section 1
consolidated prior inconsistent definitions into a more precise legal standard.
It emphasises the substance of control rather than the form, capturing both
overt coercion and subtle means of manipulation. This approach reflects
recognition that contemporary exploitation often relies on debt bondage,
threats, and situational vulnerability, rather than physical force.
Evidence difficulties highlighted in practice are reflected in case law.
In R v Joseph (2017), the Court of Appeal noted that establishing “control”
under Section 1 required detailed proof of threats, deception or dependency,
which was often unavailable due to victims’ fear of reprisal. The case
illustrated how prosecutorial success depends on sustained victim engagement,
aligning with findings from the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner’s 2019
report, which emphasised that evidential fragility continues to undermine
effective use of the statutory definitions.
Section 2 focuses on trafficking for exploitation, recognising that
trafficking encompasses recruitment, transportation, transfer or harbouring of
individuals for exploitative ends. The offence does not require the crossing of
international borders, allowing domestic trafficking cases to be prosecuted
effectively. This broad definition reflects the reality of exploitation
patterns in the UK, as seen in the case of R v L & Others, which involved
multi-layered domestic trafficking within urban areas.
Critically, the Act’s definitions prioritise vulnerability over consent.
Exploitative relationships often involve the illusion of agreement, masking
coercion through economic pressure or social isolation. Courts have been
encouraged to interpret consent narrowly in contexts of exploitation. For
example, in R v Connors, involving forced labour of vulnerable individuals on a
Traveller site, the court recognised that compliance born from fear and
dependency cannot be treated as genuine consent.
While the statutory definitions offer clarity, enforcement has proven
challenging. Successful prosecutions require detailed evidence of control,
which can be difficult to obtain when victims fear reprisal. Independent
Anti-Slavery Commissioner reports highlight that the evidential burden can
deter victims from participating in proceedings. This raises questions about
whether the statutory framework adequately addresses the complexities of victim
engagement or whether further procedural reforms are necessary to support
evidence gathering and collection.
Penalties, Sentencing and Enforcement Challenges
Section 4 of the Act introduced the possibility of life sentences for
offenders causing serious harm, reflecting the gravity with which modern
slavery is regarded. The courts now possess considerable discretion to impose
severe penalties in the most egregious cases, ensuring alignment with
comparable offences such as grievous bodily harm and serious sexual crime. This
shift also aimed to deter organised networks involved in transnational
exploitation.
However, the effectiveness of harsher sentencing is limited by low
prosecution rates. The National Crime Agency has consistently reported a gap
between the number of identified potential victims and the number of defendants
ultimately tried under the Act. Structural challenges, including the complexity
of cross-border investigations and limited cooperation from victims, contribute
to this disparity. These issues highlight that sentencing reform alone cannot
deliver robust deterrence without corresponding improvements in investigative
capacity.
The Home Office’s 2020 review of the Act identified a widening gap
between National Referral Mechanism referrals and successful prosecutions,
noting that only a small proportion progressed to charge. The Public Accounts
Committee (2021) similarly criticised the “chronically low” number of
convictions, attributing this partly to inconsistent police capability and
fragmented intelligence-sharing. These reports underscore that enhanced
sentencing powers cannot produce deterrence without parallel investment in specialist
investigative capacity and improved coordination between regional and national
agencies.
Enforcement agencies face resource constraints that affect case
progression. Police units specialising in trafficking often handle large
caseloads with limited investigative staff, creating delays that hinder victim
confidence. The Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority (GLAA) has also reported
difficulties in monitoring high-risk industries such as agriculture,
construction and food processing, sectors where exploitative labour can be
concealed within subcontracting chains and seasonal employment arrangements.
Official reviews of the Act have expressed concern that enforcement
disparities across regions weaken overall effectiveness. Some police forces
have developed strong partnerships with NGOs and local authorities, which have
improved victim identification; others, however, lack dedicated training or
expertise. Such variation demonstrates that the statutory framework requires
consistent national coordination and investment, without which sentencing
powers cannot be applied effectively.
Corporate Transparency and Supply Chain Governance (Section 54)
Section 54 introduced a pioneering legal expectation: large
organisations with a turnover exceeding £36 million must publish annual slavery
and trafficking statements. The purpose was to encourage disclosure, promote
accountability and improve due diligence across global supply chains. These
statements are required to explain organisational structures, risk procedures,
training initiatives and steps taken to prevent exploitation.
The provision was celebrated as a progressive regulatory experiment,
although criticisms emerged regarding its lack of enforcement mechanisms. The
government may seek an injunction compelling publication, but no financial
penalties exist for insufficient content. Critics argue that these weak
incentives have contributed to inconsistent compliance. Studies by anti-slavery
organisations show that many statements lack meaningful analysis, relying
instead on generalised assurances rather than concrete risk-mitigation
strategies.
Empirical assessments further highlight the weakness of Section 54
compliance. A study by the Business & Human Rights Resource Centre (2022)
found that more than one-third of FTSE 100 statements failed to meet minimum
statutory expectations, with many lacking detailed risk assessments or evidence
of monitoring. Similarly, Ergon Associates’ annual benchmarking reports have
consistently shown substantial variation across sectors, reinforcing concerns
that the transparency regime relies too heavily on voluntary corporate goodwill
rather than enforceable obligations or external verification.
Case studies expose the mixed impact of Section 54. The DJ Houghton
Chicken Catching Services case revealed severe exploitation within a UK supply
chain feeding major supermarkets, demonstrating how poor oversight enables
abusive labour conditions. Conversely, certain multinational companies have
developed sophisticated human rights due diligence models, influenced partly by
Section 54 obligations and partly by international frameworks such as the UN
Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights.
Reform proposals include mandatory reporting criteria, central
registries for statements and the introduction of penalties for non-compliance.
These proposals reflect the growing conviction that transparency necessitates
effective enforcement mechanisms to effect substantive change. Without more
rigorous oversight, Section 54 risks functioning as a symbolic measure rather
than a meaningful tool for reducing global labour exploitation.
Annual Slavery and Human Trafficking Statements
Organisations subject to Section 54 must publish annual statements
approved by senior leadership and display them prominently on their corporate
websites. These statements aim to demonstrate progress in identifying risks,
enhancing due diligence and strengthening internal policies. Boards are
expected to oversee compliance, ensuring alignment between stated commitments
and operational realities.
In practice, the quality of statements varies. Many organisations adopt
formulaic language and provide minimal information, reflecting a
compliance-focused mindset rather than a proactive approach to risk management.
Others integrate their annual disclosure into wider sustainability reporting,
demonstrating a more strategic understanding of the link between labour rights,
corporate governance and long-term business resilience.
Stakeholders increasingly scrutinise these statements. Investors, trade
unions and civil society groups examine disclosures to identify weaknesses in
supply chain governance. Their assessments influence reputational standing and,
in some sectors, investment decisions. Public expectations, therefore, play an
indirect regulatory role, applying pressure for improvements even where formal
penalties are absent.
The statements also have value as diagnostic tools. They illuminate the
extent to which organisations understand their risk landscapes, revealing
whether due diligence procedures are embedded or merely aspirational.
Statements lacking specificity often indicate more profound governance
weaknesses. Consequently, the disclosure requirement functions both as a
transparency device and as an indicator of organisational maturity in
addressing forced labour risks.
Risk Identification, Mitigation and Due Diligence Practices
Identifying modern slavery risks requires a multi-layered analysis that
involves industry characteristics, geographic exposure, and operational
structures. High-risk sectors frequently involve low-skilled, labour-intensive
work, often with large proportions of migrant labour. These patterns are
evident in agriculture, garment manufacturing, construction and shipping, where
cost pressures and complex subcontracting can mask exploitative practices.
Geographical risk remains a significant factor. Countries with limited
regulatory oversight, high levels of corruption or inadequate labour
protections present heightened vulnerabilities. Organisations sourcing raw
materials or goods from such regions must undertake deeper due diligence,
recognising that exploitation can occur at early stages of supply chains,
including mining, fishing or agricultural harvesting.
Operational models also influence exposure. Outsourcing and reliance on
temporary or seasonal labour create conditions where oversight gaps flourish.
In the UK, several high-profile trafficking cases have emerged from car washes,
nail bars and food production facilities, demonstrating that exploitation is
not confined to distant jurisdictions. This dual domestic-international risk
profile necessitates comprehensive due diligence spanning multiple tiers of
suppliers.
Effective mitigation strategies require sustained engagement, including
training, audits, remediation processes and collaborative initiatives with NGOs
or industry groups. While audits remain widely used, studies show that
traditional audit models often fail to uncover hidden exploitation,
necessitating more participatory approaches, such as worker interviews,
community engagement programs, and independent worker-voice mechanisms. These
methods provide deeper insight into working conditions and power dynamics
within supply chains.
Organisational Policies, Procedures and Ethical Governance
Robust anti-slavery policies articulate commitments, outline
responsibilities and provide procedural guidance for identifying, reporting and
addressing exploitation. These policies should be integrated into human
resources practices, procurement frameworks and supplier contracts. Clear
communication is essential so that employees, contractors and supply chain
partners understand expectations and available reporting channels.
Effective policies are supported by training that equips staff with
knowledge of indicators, legal obligations and escalation procedures. Training
tailored to procurement, site management and recruitment functions ensures that
staff closest to potential risks understand how to detect and respond to
concerns. In practice, organisations with strong training programmes exhibit
higher levels of risk awareness and more effective incident reporting.
Regular policy reviews enable organisations to adapt to changing risk
environments. Emerging issues, such as online recruitment scams, fraudulent
labour agencies, and digital coercion, require updated internal strategies.
Organisations are increasingly adopting technology-based monitoring systems for
labour agencies and supply chain partners, improving visibility and reducing
their dependency on manual verification alone.
Ethical governance requires alignment between policy and practice.
Boards must ensure that modern slavery commitments are reflected in operational
decisions, investment strategies and performance indicators. Organisations with
misaligned incentives, such as aggressive cost-reduction targets, risk
undermining their anti-slavery policies. Consequently, ethical governance is
achieved not merely through written standards but through coherent
organisational cultures that prioritise human rights.
Senior Executive Accountability and Public Disclosure
Requiring senior executives to sign slavery and trafficking statements
reinforces leadership accountability. Senior endorsement signals internal
commitment and strengthens governance structures. Best practices encourage
executives to articulate the rationale behind their endorsement, enabling
stakeholders to assess the credibility and leadership engagement with human
rights issues.
Public accessibility further enhances accountability. Statements should
be easily accessible and written in clear, concise language. A central
government registry for statements has been proposed to enhance transparency,
although such reforms are still under consideration. Public availability allows
scrutiny by NGOs, journalists and consumers, increasing organisational
motivation to improve substantive practices rather than relying on symbolic
statements.
Executive accountability operates most effectively when linked to
operational oversight and accountability. Boards that integrate modern slavery
considerations into audit committees, risk assessments and strategy discussions
establish stronger governance frameworks. This institutional integration
ensures that anti-slavery commitments are treated as core business
considerations rather than peripheral obligations.
However, some organisations treat executive sign-off as a procedural
formality. Critics argue that without mandatory reporting criteria or
enforcement powers, Section 54 does not ensure meaningful senior involvement.
This gap underscores the need for more robust regulatory mechanisms to ensure
that leadership accountability translates into operational improvements.
Multi-Agency Enforcement and Regulatory Architecture
The Act’s enforcement relies on cooperation between multiple agencies,
each with distinct responsibilities. The Home Office oversees policy and
compliance for public bodies, supporting the coordination of investigations and
ensuring effective coordination. The National Crime Agency leads high-level
operations addressing organised trafficking networks. Police forces handle
frontline investigations, often working with NGO partners to identify victims
and gather evidence.
Oversight bodies have repeatedly highlighted coordination failures. Her
Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services
(HMICFRS), in its 2017 and 2020 inspections, reported significant regional
disparities in police capability, with some forces lacking specialist units or
clear investigative pathways for labour exploitation. The reports also
identified a lack of data sharing between the NCA, police forces, and local
authorities. These findings indicate that the multi-agency architecture, while
theoretically robust, struggles to operate coherently without sustained funding
and national oversight.
The Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority focuses on labour
exploitation in high-risk industries. Its hybrid role as both an intelligence
and licensing body allows it to monitor labour providers and intervene where
exploitation is suspected. Case studies highlight the GLAA’s success in
disrupting illegal gangmasters and uncovering trafficking networks within
agricultural supply chains.
Trading Standards services play a crucial role in regulating workplace
practices, particularly where exploitation overlaps with breaches of employment
law. Their involvement ensures that exploitation within small businesses or
informal sectors does not escape oversight. This multi-agency architecture enables
the coordinated tackling of various forms of exploitation.
Yet challenges remain. Funding constraints, inconsistent regional
practices and complex inter-agency communication inhibit the full realisation
of the Act’s ambitions. Reviews of the Act consistently highlight the need for
stronger national coordination, improved data-sharing and enhanced training.
Without these improvements, the multi-agency system risks fragmentation,
limiting its effectiveness in combating modern slavery.
Victim Protection, Support and Legal Defences
Victim protection is central to the Act’s humanitarian objectives.
Section 45 provides a statutory defence for victims compelled to commit crimes
due to exploitation. The defence recognises that perpetrators often coerce
victims into illegal activities to entrench control. The provision is
especially significant for minors, who benefit from a presumption of diminished
responsibility.
Academic commentary has also critiqued the victim protection framework.
Craig (2021) argues that the National Referral Mechanism’s delays and
inconsistent decision-making undermine the protections envisaged by the Act,
leaving many victims without secure access to accommodation, legal advice or
psychological support. Recent research by the Anti-Trafficking Monitoring Group
similarly found that fear of deportation and mistrust of authorities continue
to deter victims from engaging with investigations. These challenges suggest
that statutory rights may not be effectively translated into lived protection.
Sections 46 and 47 support victims participating in legal proceedings, prevent
self-incrimination, and enable witness anonymity where necessary. These
protections encourage cooperation with the criminal justice process while
reducing retraumatisation. They reflect broader international trends that
emphasise victim-centred justice systems.
Despite these protections, challenges persist in practice. Some victims
fear reprisals, distrust authorities, or remain psychologically bound to
exploiters, reducing their willingness to engage in legal processes.
Additionally, identifying victims can be difficult when exploitation is
concealed within informal labour markets or domestic environments. These issues
highlight the need for trauma-informed practices in policing, judicial
processes and support services.
There are calls for further reform, including enhanced legal aid, more
extended recovery periods and improved access to secure accommodation. Ensuring
that victims receive adequate support is vital not only for individual well-being
but also for effective law enforcement, as victims are often key witnesses in
complex trafficking cases.
Summary - Modern Slavery Act’s Effectiveness and Challenges
The Modern Slavery Act 2015 represents a landmark UK effort to modernise
legal responses to slavery, trafficking and forced labour. Its consolidation of
offences and focus on victim protection brought clarity to an area previously
governed by fragmented legislation. Although the Act strengthened sentencing
powers and introduced necessary transparency measures, its effectiveness
depends significantly on consistent enforcement, adequate resources and
sustained political commitment.
Corporate transparency obligations under Section 54 have reshaped
expectations for supply chain governance, encouraging organisations to adopt
more sophisticated approaches to risk management. However, the absence of
penalties for weak reporting limits the impact of the provision. Case studies
of exploitation in UK supply chains show that voluntary compliance alone cannot
eliminate harmful practices, prompting calls for more prescriptive reporting
requirements and enforcement mechanisms.
Multi-agency enforcement remains central to the Act’s operational
success. Agencies, including the NCA, GLAA, police, and Trading Standards, play
complementary roles, although resource constraints and uneven regional
practices hinder consistent outcomes. Strengthening coordination and improving
specialist training are crucial for enhancing investigation quality and
increasing prosecution rates, which remain lower than anticipated when the Act
was introduced.
Victim protection provisions represent one of the Act’s strongest
features, offering legal defences for those compelled to commit offences and
improving support during legal proceedings. Nonetheless, practical challenges
in victim identification, engagement and long-term care continue to complicate
enforcement efforts. Ensuring trauma-informed support is essential for the
Act’s protective ethos to function effectively.
Overall, the Act provides a sophisticated framework for addressing
modern slavery but requires further refinement to fulfil its potential.
Strengthened enforcement mechanisms, mandatory reporting standards and enhanced
victim support would improve its practical impact. Continued collaboration among
government, civil society, and business remains essential, given the complex
and evolving nature of contemporary exploitation. The Act’s future
effectiveness will depend on sustained commitment to tackling both the
structural and immediate drivers of modern slavery.
Additional
articles can be found at Procurement Made Easy. This site looks at procurement
issues to assist organisations and people in increasing the quality,
efficiency, and effectiveness of their product and service supply to the
customers' delight. ©️ Procurement Made Easy. All rights reserved.
