4.3 Article

The domestic politics of corporate accountability legislation: struggles over the 2015 UK Modern Slavery Act

Journal

SOCIO-ECONOMIC REVIEW
Volume 17, Issue 3, Pages 709-743

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/ser/mwx047

Keywords

governance; corporate social responsibility; government; social movements; firms; law

Funding

  1. ESRC Future Research Leaders Grant [ES/N001192/1]
  2. Yale University Gilder Lehrman Center for the Study of Slavery, Resistance, and Abolition Human Trafficking and Modern Slavery Fellowship
  3. European Union [693642]
  4. ESRC [ES/N001192/1] Funding Source: UKRI

Ask authors/readers for more resources

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.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available