April's Senior Counsel event, held in partnership with Flex Legal and Radius Law, featured a captivating panel discussion on modern slavery and its evolving regulatory landscape. Radius Law’s Director Iain Larkins expertly guided the conversation alongside Alice Hardy, Partner at Bindmans; Zoë Warren, Philanthropy and Corporate Partnerships Lead at IJM UK; and Peter Hood, Counsel at King & Spalding. Together, they delved into international regulatory frameworks designed to ensure compliance in global supply chains and how the UK compares, identified the varying manifestations of modern slavery, and highlighted case law developments—including a transformative Court of Appeal decision. Their insights underscored the pressing need for both legislators and companies to intensify efforts in combating exploitative and unethical labour practices.
Iain highlights a staggering fact: the UN estimates that nearly 50 million people are trapped in the chains of modern slavery—more than ever before. This chilling reality sets the stage for this discussion.
Zoë Warren leads Philanthropy and Corporate Partnerships at IJM UK—a global team of lawyers, investigators, and social workers dedicated to protecting vulnerable individuals from slavery and violence. IJM’s model for systemic change includes:
Zoe states that IJM has ensured that regulatory environments have been created to support businesses, workers and economies as well as assisting businesses to operate in certain high-risk regions without the increased risk of forced labour becoming a part of their supply chains.
Slavery has and always will be brutal, exploitative and violent, and modern slavery and forced labour are no exception. Today, forced labour can take many forms, from sexual exploitation and domestic servitude to online abuse. Forced labour may be much closer to home than we think; the very person who produced your clothing could be enduring abusive and exploitative working conditions, and be a part of a widespread and highly profitable crime.
Zoe shares the story of a woman seeking to escape debt and secure her daughter's education who journeyed to Thailand for a promising job opportunity, only to be deceived by a broker. She ended up trapped in a jelly sweet factory working under exploitative conditions—tall fences, little to no sleep, scarce food and water, all forms of identity confiscated, and promised wages withheld. After three years, Thai authorities and the IJM intervened, rescuing her, and enabling her to reunite with her family while transforming her experience into a powerful voice against modern slavery. This story serves as a reminder to people not to get caught up in the ‘legislation and statistics of it all’ and to remember that there are real people, and their lives involved.
Peter discusses the differing legislative regimes in different jurisdictions below, including the EU, US and the UK. While bans on slavery and forced labour have existed for over a century, the past decade has seen significant advancements in legislation directly targeting corporate responsibilities. In many jurisdictions today, businesses are required to implement robust due diligence practices, adhere to strict reporting obligations, and demonstrate greater accountability for human rights across their supply chains. These evolving regulations reflect a global commitment to eradicating forced labour and ensuring that corporate practices align with international human rights standards.
Under the EU’s Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD), companies based in or operating within the EU must adhere to international due diligence standards outlined in the OECD Guidelines and the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. Companies that fail to comply will face significant penalties. However, following announcements in February 2025 and subsequent proposed amendments, the implementation of the CSDDD has been postponed from 2027 until 2028. Notably, Peter highlights that the directive’s scope will potentially be limited to direct business partners following these proposed amendments. Similarly, the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) has been delayed until 2028, with proposed amendments aimed at reducing the number of companies subject to its reporting obligations.
In December 2027, the EU Forced Labour Regulation will come into effect as scheduled, without any delays or proposed amendments. It prohibits companies from exporting or placing on the EU market any product made with forced labour—covering every stage of the product's lifecycle. The Regulation empowers the European Commission and member states to carry out investigations and enforce compliance. Although it does not impose an explicit requirement for due diligence, companies are strongly advised to maintain robust due diligence processes in line with international standards, ensuring they can readily demonstrate their compliance during an investigation.
In the US, both the Tariff Act of 1930 and the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act (UFLPA) are rigorously enforced to block imports linked to forced labour. To successfully import, under these regulations, companies must provide clear evidence of due diligence across their entire supply chain, from raw material sourcing to final production, to ensure their products meet ethical standards. Peter interestingly notes that enforcement of these laws has intensified since the Trump administration took power in 2024, resulting in more companies being added to the UFLPA list for failing to address forced labour risks in their supply chains.
The EU and US’ regulations and legislation show that there is a cross-atlantic consensus on the need to conduct due diligence on forced labour in the supply chain.
Peter observes the UK lacks a direct equivalent to the forced labour regulations found in the EU and US, which means it may be trailing slightly in enforcing corporate accountability within supply chains. The Modern Slavery Act 2015 (MSA 2015) remains the sole major legislative response over the past decade. However, Peter observes that UK courts have effectively stepped in to bridge this regulatory gap, in both civil and criminal respects.
Alice concurs with Peter's view that, although the UK lags in its legislation on forced labour, its courts have stepped in to fill the void. The case of R (on the Application of World Uyghur Congress) v National Crime Agency is a prime example of this judicial intervention. Alice, part of the legal team representing the applicant, World Uyghur Congress (WUC), provides a summary of and insight into this case below.
The WUC presented evidence to the National Crime Agency (NCA) of human rights abuses in China’s Xinjiang region, arguing that cotton products imported into the UK from this area should be classified as criminal property under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA 2002). The claim was based on the association of these goods with forced labour, and the WUC requested that the NCA investigate money laundering allegations and initiate a civil recovery operation under POCA 2002. However, the NCA declined to investigate, maintaining that an investigation can only proceed when both the criminal conduct and the property are clearly identified, and that the defence provided under POCA 2002, s 329(2)(c) (where adequate consideration has been paid) effectively removes the property’s criminal nature.
The Administrative Court found that the NCA had erred in law on these two key points: requiring that property be identified as criminal before launching an investigation and interpreting the defence as one that ‘cleanses’ the criminal nature of the property. Despite this, the court held that the NCA’s decision was within its discretionary powers.
On appeal, the Court of Appeal overturned the earlier decision by clarifying that a reasonable suspicion of criminal conduct is sufficient to warrant an investigation. It further determined that the defence provided under POCA does not cleanse the goods of their criminal nature, meaning that such property remains recoverable even if it was acquired for an adequate price at some point in the supply chain. The court also made clear that while a purchaser may be afforded protection under this defence when they acquire the property, the protection does not extend to those who knowingly transfer or sell property suspected of being criminal.
The judgment carries significant implications. It reinforces the need for companies, particularly those importing goods from regions with a history of human rights abuses, to undertake rigorous supply chain due diligence. Regulatory bodies might now intensify their oversight of supply chains, requiring businesses to demonstrate compliance with money laundering and anti-slavery legislation. Moreover, the case sets a precedent for future legal challenges and encourages enforcement agencies (like the NCA) to take steps to hold businesses accountable to prevent and identify forced labour in their supply chains, in line with IJM’s model aims.
Peter brings attention to interesting and novel cases to look out for in the realm of forced labour enforcement in the UK. These include Limbu v Dyson Technology Ltd, as well as Josiya v British American Tobacco Plc brought by alleged victims of forced labour practices and California State Teachers' Retirement System and another v Boohoo Group Plc, initiated by investors rather than alleged victims.
Peter points out that Limbu v Dyson Technology Ltd, currently on appeal to the UK Supreme Court, is particularly important because it is one of the few cases addressing a supplier rather than a subsidiary company. In this case, migrant labourers who were allegedly subjected to forced labour practices in a Malaysian factory, operated by one of Dyson’s suppliers, successfully argued that their claims could proceed in a UK court against three Dyson entities. This decision was based on the argument that these companies, two of which are domiciled in the UK, are responsible for enforcing the country’s policies against forced labour within their supply chains.
As mentioned already, there is a general consensus that the UK is falling behind in respect of legislation regulating modern slavery and corporate accountability when compared to the EU and US, for example. Peter notes that the MSA 2015 requires certain companies to report their supply chain due diligence efforts, yet no mechanisms are in place to verify these reports. In March 2025, the government addressed this gap by issuing guidance that provides for structured reporting aligning with international standards, outlining minimum expectations, best practices, and providing guidance for companies who are committed to strengthening their modern slavery policies on how to effectively achieve this.
Despite the move in the right direction, the new guidance is non-mandatory and fails to address key shortcomings of the MSA 2010, which does not enforce due diligence or standardised reporting. On 16 January 2025, the Human Rights (Joint Committee) launched an inquiry into the effectiveness of the UK's forced labour policies in supply chains. Peter suggests the inquiry will likely find the current approach ineffective, recommending stricter reporting, import bans, and broader due diligence measures. The question remains: will the government adopt these recommendations?
To get in touch and progress this discussion within your own organisations and investigate what this may look like for you or your business, please contact Iain Larkins (iain.larkins@radiuslaw.co.uk) or Zoë Warren (zoe.warren@ijmuk.org).
You can keep up to date with developments over the coming year by signing up for Lexis+ news alerts .
If you’re not currently a subscriber to ÑÇÖÞÉ«ÇéÍø, you can get free access for 7 days here.
The next in-house senior counsel event is scheduled for 28th May 2025. Further details and registration information are available below.
Date: Wednesday 28th May 2025
Time: 10:00 – 11:00 GMT
If you’re not currently a subscriber to ÑÇÖÞÉ«ÇéÍø Practical Guidance, fill out the form below for free 7 days’ access.
* denotes a required field
Jennifer is part of the South African hub at ÑÇÖÞÉ«ÇéÍø UK, obtaining her LLB qualification at the University of Pretoria in South Africa. She currently provides support to the Corporate Crime and Arbitration practice areas.Â
0330 161 1234