The Organizational Dynamics of Compliance With the UK Modern Slavery Act in the Food and Tobacco Sector

Abstract

Empirical studies indicate that business compliance with the UK Modern Slavery Act is disappointing, but they struggle to make sense of this phenomenon. This article offers a novel framework to understand how business organizations construct the meaning of compliance with the UK Modern Slavery Act. Our analysis builds on the endogeneity of law theory developed by Edelman. Empirically, our study is based on the analysis of the modern slavery statements of 10 FTSE 100 (Financial Times Stock Exchange 100 Index) companies in the food and tobacco sector, backed by interviews with business, civil society, and public officers. We offer a dynamic model that draws attention to the role of compliance professionals in framing ambiguous rules and devising a variety of organizational responses to modern slavery law. Contrary to extant research that tends to praise organizations for going "beyond compliance", our study underlines the risks of managerialization of modern slavery law, whereby merely symbolic structures come to be associated with legal compliance, even when they are ineffective at tackling modern slavery.

Corporate Responsibility for Human Rights in Assam Tea Plantations: A Business and Human Rights Approach

“…The data suggest that from the perspective of advancing the protection of rights-holders, corporate disclosures are of limited value. In this sense, our findings confirm the findings of other studies that have noted the inherent limitations and at times counter-productive effects of corporate reporting, even when such reporting is mandated by law, as is the case, for example, under the UK Modern Slavery Act [11,13]. Moreover, this article has also advanced previous knowledge by focusing on reporting on well-documented human rights issues.…”

“…This is an important finding because, given how serious and publicized those issues are, one could have expected companies to pay more attention to them, and reports to reflect on them. Instead, reports remain as evasive about Assam as they are about other human rights issues [13]. Selective disclosure is at play even when human rights issues connected to the companies are well-documented [73].…”

“…Past studies have, for example, looked at the prevalence of reporting, and the reasons for reporting [36,37]. In this literature, human rights remains a largely theoretical concept, just like corporate reports themselves engage superficially with human rights issues even in the case of mandatory reporting [13]. Our study contributes to this literature by adopting a different perspective.…”

“…A growing body of academic literature looks at how companies report on non-financial issues, including human rights. Studies have focused on certain countries [12] (p. 29), and issues, for example modern slavery [13][14][15]. They highlighted how those reports engage superficially with human rights issues, following instead a "managerial logic" [16], whereby professionals attempt to map the company's potential human rights impact and devise processes to manage them.…”

Torn between Legal Claiming and Privatized Remedy: Rights Mobilization against Gold Mining in Chile

“…Drawing on Edelman (2016), we call this process the "managerialization of human rights." In essence, this consists of adopting business organization structures that mimic the public legal order in form; for example, by internalizing dispute resolution procedures and mechanisms (see Monciardini, Bernaz, & Andhov, 2019). They demonstrate attention to law and, therefore, lend legitimacy to organizations.…”