The home states of multinational enterprises have in recent years sought to use public regulation to fill the gaps left by the absence of a binding labour standards framework in international law. This article examines recent home state initiatives to address forced labour, human trafficking, and slavery in global supply chains, and their interactions with private governance initiatives. Focusing on a case study of the 2015 UK Modern Slavery Act and 2010 UK Bribery Act, we analyse two distinct legislative approaches that policy makers have used to promote corporate accountability within global supply chains and explore the varied impacts that these approaches have on corporate behaviour. Empirically, we analyse codes of conduct, annual CSR reports, and supplier terms and conditions for 25 FTSE 100 companies to shed light into the impact of the legislation on corporate behaviour. We find that legislation that creates criminal corporate liability appears to spur deeper changes to corporate strategy, and argue that in the case of the Modern Slavery Act, the triumph of voluntary reporting over more stringent public labour standards seems to have undermined the effectiveness of recent governance initiatives to address forced labour in global supply chains.
Over the last decade, the norm of corporate accountability for labour standards in global supply chains has become increasingly prominent within the transnational governance arena. As global governance initiatives to spur due diligence for labour standards and combat exploitation in global supply chains—especially its most severe forms frequently described as modern slavery—have proliferated, societal coalitions have pressured states to pass domestic legislation to the same effect. In this article, we examine the regulatory processes that spurred the passage of one piece of anti-slavery legislation, the UK’s 2015 Modern Slavery Act. Our findings corroborate a number of established expectations regarding business opposition towards new legislation to raise public labour standards, but also provide a clearer picture of the mechanisms through which industry actors impact policymaking processes. Paradoxically, such mechanisms include business actors’ championing of weak regulatory initiatives, CSR activity and partnering with civil society organizations. Understanding industry actors’ use of these strategies improves our understanding of how transnational norms of corporate accountability and anti-slavery are being contested and shaped at domestic scales.
Purpose
This paper aims to address the evolution of corporate governance in Germany with a particular regard to whether there can be observed a gradual convergence to a shareholder primacy corporate governance system.
Design/methodology/approach
To investigate a potential shift of the German corporate governance system to an Anglo-American tiled corporate governance system, the authors have empirically assessed on a polynomial base 52 separate company and corporate governance variables for 20 years (1995-2014).
Findings
This research suggests that a gradual convergence has taken place prior to the global financial crisis. However, the results suggest that the convergence process experienced a slowdown in the aftermath of the global financial crisis, which may be linked to the stability of the German corporate governance system during the global financial crisis and the political environment during this time.
Originality/value
This paper contributes to the research by not only analysing the development of the German corporate governance system but also identifying new reasons for this development and explaining why a new convergence process may be observed in the future again.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.