By David Monciardini, Nadia Bernaz, & Alexandra Andhov

There is growing attention to misleading and deceptive corporate discourses that are ‘created, circulated and consumed with little respect for or relationship to reality’ (Spicer, 2013: 654; Jenkins and Delbridge, 2020). However, existing theories stop short of showing how subtly deceptive corporate mechanisms interact with the law. Our Business & Society article titled “The Organizational Dynamics of Compliance with the UK Modern Slavery Act in the Food and Tobacco Sector” focuses on the response of very large corporations to modern slavery legislation. Drawing on the endogeneity of Law perspective (Edelman, 2006), we contend that anti-slavery corporate policies and structures can be ‘symbolic’ responses to slavery without being ‘substantive’ (meaning that such responses symbolize attention to law and legal principles, but do little or nothing to effectuate legal ideas within corporate organizations).

Far from being a relic of the past, slavery is widespread today and prevalent in the supply chains of large corporations (Crane, 2013). Despite modern slavery laws and international standards that emphasise corporate due diligence and transparency, the response of the corporate world has been somewhat puzzling. Studies on the implementation of the Modern Slavery Act found that the response of large corporations can be often disappointing, including non-compliance and compliance with the strict letter of the law (Joint Committee on Human Rights, 2017). Yet, in some cases corporations have been also praised for going ‘beyond compliance’ (CORE 2016). How can we make sense of this mixed response?

Based on a document analysis and interviews with the ten largest FTSE100 companies in the food and tobacco industry, we highlight the role of compliance professionals in framing ambiguous legal provisions, such as the Modern Slavery Act, and filling the gaps in the law. We have identified mechanisms that can lead either to merely symbolic forms of compliance or more substantive compliance. Various empirical examples of organizational mechanisms leading to merely symbolic compliance are cited in the article, including contractual and operational mechanisms designed to push responsibility away to suppliers; and the use of privatized internal grievance procedures to retain greater control over the resolution of human rights violations, bypassing formal legal mechanisms.

We submit that lawmakers should be careful about praising these corporate policies for going ‘beyond compliance’ as they can be deceiving and even counterproductive. Over time, if merely symbolic compliance is widely perceived as best practice, this may actually undermine the capacity of the legal system to promote social change and contribute to eradicating modern slavery practices. By contrast, the article illustrates some examples of truly substantive corporate compliance in which companies were relying on governmental and external monitoring processes, rather than internalised procedures and compliance professional demonstrated adherence to the radical prohibition of slavery and strong engagement with suppliers, even when it conflicts with corporate interests.

We conclude it is crucial that future modern slavery legal interventions consider the dynamic interplay between legal and corporate structures and avoid possible instances of slavery being dealt ‘behind closed doors’ by quasi-legal corporate structures. This requires openness and coordination with police officers, trade unions and, where appropriate, local civil society organisations to prevent exploitations. Our study also has implications for modern slavery policy debates. We suggest to be more cautious about corporate self-governance and to scrutinise the effectiveness of corporate structures. Policy-makers can have an important role in encouraging the creation of more substantive corporate responses. For instance, when revising the Modern Slavery Act, they should minimise legal ambiguity and not be afraid of rigid and prescriptive rules. They should include substantive and tangible metrics of compliance and judicial and administrative mechanisms to scrutinise business conduct. By doing so, we can truly start to eradicate modern slavery within corporations and their supply chains.

References:

CORE (2016). Beyond Compliance: Effective Reporting Under the Modern Slavery Act. Retrieved from https://corporate-responsibility.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/CSO_TISC_guidance_final_digitalversion_16.03.16.pdf.

Crane, A. (2013). Modern slavery as a management practice: exploring the conditions and capabilities for human exploitation. Academy of Management Review, 38, 49–69.

Edelman, L. B. (2016). Working law: Courts, corporations, and symbolic civil rights. University of Chicago Press.

Jenkins, S., & Delbridge, R. (2020). Exploring Organizational Deception: Organizational Contexts, Social Relations and Types of Lying. Organization Theory, 1(2), 2631787720919436.

Joint Committee on Human Rights. (2017). Human rights and business 2017: promoting responsibility and ensuring accountability. Retrieved from https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt201617/jtselect/jtrights/443/443.pdf.

Monciardini, D., Bernaz, N., & Andhov, A. Online First. The Organizational Dynamics of Compliance With the UK Modern Slavery Act in the Food and Tobacco Sector. Business & Society. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0007650319898195

Spicer, A. (2013). Shooting the shit: the role of bullshit in organisations. M@n@gement, 16, 653–666.