Modern Slavery Is Managed Like a Business Choice, Not an Accident

Modern slavery remains hidden not because it is rare, but because supply chains are engineered to obscure it, according to research led by Professor Glenn Parry (University of Surrey) and Dr Mike Rogerson (University of Sussex). Their work argues that exploitation often emerges from cost-focused procurement strategies that push labour and subcontracting farther “upstream,” reducing direct oversight and weakening the flow of accountability to where harm occurs.

The study estimates that around 27 million people worldwide are living in conditions of modern slavery embedded in ordinary consumer and business services. Although many governments require companies to publish modern slavery statements, the authors say disclosure mechanisms have not consistently translated into meaningful operational change.

A central finding is that firms often maintain structural distance from vulnerable work. This distance may be geographical (cross-border outsourcing), organisational (layered contracting), or digital (work allocation and monitoring by automated systems). When oversight is indirect, companies rely on proxy indicators—such as documentation quality or audit scores—rather than direct, verifiable worker feedback.

The research highlights a technical governance problem: visibility and traceability degrade as subcontract depth increases. In practice, this creates information asymmetry, where risk signals become noisy and accountability becomes diffuse across tiers of suppliers.

In response, the issue “Modern Slavery and Supply Chain Management” in Supply Chain Management synthesises evidence from multiple sectors, including construction, social care, logistics, and global manufacturing. It draws on interviews with practitioners and workers alongside analysis of corporate reporting and policy frameworks.

Across studies, compliance-centred approaches are portrayed as insufficient. Audits and checklists may detect surface-level nonconformities, but they can miss coercion, wage manipulation, or unsafe conditions that are not captured by routine documentation.

The authors also point to a network-level barrier: competitive pressure and mistrust can prevent collaboration between firms, NGOs, and governments. Without shared targets and genuine information exchange, collective action risks turning into a symbolic “tick-box” exercise rather than risk reduction.

As a practical shift, the research recommends moving from reporting to knowledge-building. Companies are encouraged to invest in deeper supply chain understanding, including systematic engagement with workers to incorporate “upstream voices” into decision-making for anti-slavery measures.

Ultimately, the paper argues that supply chain complexity should not function as an excuse. If distance is produced by design choices, it can be redesigned—changing where oversight sits, how data is generated, and whose experiences inform interventions.