This year marks the 10th anniversary of the UK’s Modern Slavery Act, proving an obvious point for reflecting on its legacy. When the Act was passed, it was touted as being a ‘world leading’ piece of legislation. This was accurate ten years ago because the only similar piece of legislation was California’s Transparency in Supply Chains Act, upon which the UK’s Modern Slavery Act was modelled. Both acts require companies to report on the actions companies are taking to address labour exploitation in their supply chains. However, California’s legislation has a threshold of $100 million, is only applied to a limited range of sectors, and is limited to California. The UK’s MSA, by contrast, applies to all companies with earnings above £36 million operating in the UK. New provisions were also made for an Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner, and the creation of a new offence with which to prosecute exploiters.
Does this mean the UK, 10 years later, can celebrate having eradicated modern slavery? Not quite. In fact, it is not clear what impact the legislation has had beyond raising awareness of the problem and leading to the production of company disclosures on the steps companies have taken, which, in many cases, do not amount to much. This is despite many companies proclaiming to have a “zero tolerance” stance on modern slavery, but making limited or superficial changes to their existing operations. There are of course, exceptions where companies have taken their responsibilities more seriously, but these are unfortunately in the minority. Additionally, immigration policies have clashed with the commitment to support victims of exploitation. As the various articles in this issue make clear, the legacy of the Modern Slavery Act is a complicated one.
To begin with, despite the MSA being in place for 10 years, there is still virtually no consensus on any key aspect of modern slavery, including how to define it or whether the term should be used at all. As Pankhuri Agarwal and Sharmila Parmanand highlight in their article, the expansive use of the term modern slavery beyond exploitation has rendered it almost meaningless in some contexts. And the shift away from focusing on good working conditions, fair pay and the ability to organise has created a political spectacle out of exploitation. This is especially the case in the framing often used of perpetrators as evildoers and the exploited as their victims, at the expense of focusing on what works for addressing exploitative working practices. Pankhuri and Sharmila argue that a return to the basics of protecting labour rights is required.
Looking within the broader call for the improvement of workers’ rights, we find the complexities experienced by the most vulnerable group of workers: migrants. Addressing this issue, Olivia Vicol, CEO of the Work Rights Centre, highlights the impact of the implementation of increasingly anti-immigration policies. In this article, it is argued that migrant workers are being subjected to the ‘politics of control’ where the ground shifts beneath their feet, whereby terms and conditions are changed while they support essential aspects of the UK economy.
Continuing within the theme of migrant vulnerabilities, Dame Sara Thornton, who served a three year term as the UK’s Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner, argues that at a political level, modern slavery has been conflated with immigration. This has undermined the idea that victims of exploitation will be provided with appropriate support. It seems the Modern Slavery Act itself may now also be under threat, with some government ministers arguing that it is being abused for the purposes of preventing deportation. Sara goes on to argue that attention needs to be turned more substantially towards prevention rather than only prosecutions and victim support.
In more recent years, it has been acknowledged by those working in the field of modern slavery that there are multiple forms of expertise that we must draw on in order to understand how to address the problem and support those who have been exploited. One perspective that is being incorporated more into research, consultations, and government enquiries is that of people with lived experience of exploitation. From this perspective, Brandon Thomas argues for a move away from understanding those with lived experience only as ‘victims’, and instead as human beings with their own hopes, dreams, and aspirations who happen to have been exploited. Placing the dignity of workers and those who have experienced exploitation can help reorient our approaches to address the problem. Similarly, Nina Briggs argues that some people are deemed too ‘atypical’ to receive support after having been exploited, and in doing so, challenges perceptions about who might be vulnerable to exploitation and how support is provided. Better systems of support must therefore be built if we are serious about supporting survivors.
As the articles in this issue highlight, there is no shortage of criticisms of the Modern Slavery Act, or how various governments have approached the issue. Nevertheless, this issue also offers a variety of ways forward that, if followed, would help to ensure legislation is improved rather than weakened, that businesses are held to account, and that people who have been exploited are treated with the dignity they deserve.
Image credit: Masahiro Miyagi via Unsplash