The Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner (IASC) has published a major report calling for an overhaul of the UK’s approach to forced labour and human rights in supply chains. The central message for employers is clear – a shift from transparency and reporting towards mandatory human rights due diligence, civil liability and, in serious cases, criminal exposure. If adopted, the proposals would significantly increase both corporate and personal risk for organisations operating in the UK.
The IASC report estimates that each year the UK imports approximately £20 billion of goods that are at risk of being produced through forced labour. It warns that, as other jurisdictions introduce import bans and mandatory due diligence regimes, the UK risks falling behind unless it strengthens its own framework.
From transparency to enforceable obligations
When the Modern Slavery Act 2015 came into force, it was widely regarded as world leading. It requires large organisations to report on steps taken to address modern slavery risks in their supply chains. Ten years on, the IASC report suggests that reliance on disclosure and voluntary reporting from smaller organisations has not delivered sufficient change. Other jurisdictions have since developed due diligence legislation that goes further than UK provisions, moving rapidly towards mandatory due diligence and import bans. The report warns that, without reform, the UK risks becoming a “dumping ground” for goods produced using forced labour as other markets close their doors.
For employers, this is not simply a policy debate. It signals a potential move from narrative reporting to enforceable legal duties, backed by financial penalties and litigation risk.
A new “failure to prevent” model
At the heart of the report is draft legislation for a suggested Forced Labour and Human Rights Act. The model adopts the “failure to prevent” approach, similar to that used under anti-bribery and fraud legislation. Organisations would be responsible for serious human rights harms that they cause, contribute to, or are directly linked to through their business relationships. A defence would be available if the organisation could demonstrate that it undertook reasonable human rights due diligence.
This would represent a fundamental shift. The main mechanism for addressing modern slavery risk would no longer primarily be through annual statements, but through demonstrable systems, controls and oversight that would be subject to regulatory and judicial scrutiny.
Employment practices in scope
Although much of the discussion around modern slavery focuses on procurement and supply chains, the report places significant emphasis on employment practices as a core risk area. Survivor testimony included in the report highlights common risk factors, including:
- exploitative recruitment practices;
- withholding of identity documents;
- opaque or misleading contractual terms;
- lack of effective grievance mechanisms; and
- fear of retaliation for raising concerns.
The proposed regime would explicitly embed human rights due diligence into recruitment, onboarding, contractual arrangements and worker communications. This has clear implications for employers using complex labour supply models, including agency workers and third-party labour providers. HR functions, not just procurement teams, would need to demonstrate active oversight and risk management.
Regulatory enforcement and litigation risk
The IASC report envisages a strengthened enforcement framework. Regulators would have powers to impose significant civil penalties, including fines linked to global turnover, as well as compliance orders, public censure and exclusion from public procurement processes. Victims, or their representatives, would also be able to bring civil claims against relevant organisations. Criminal liability would be reserved for the most egregious cases, with potential prosecution for organisations and senior officers.
One practical consequence may be the reframing of issues traditionally addressed through internal processes or employment tribunal claims as wider human rights harms, carrying broader financial and reputational consequences.
Practical steps for employers
While any legislative reform of this significance would take time to pass and implement, the IASC report is indicative of the likely direction of travel. Employers may wish to consider proactive steps towards more robust, risk-based due diligence in the meantime, such as:
- reviewing existing modern slavery and human rights processes to identify the gaps between policy and operational practice;
- stress-testing recruitment and labour supply models, particularly where third parties are involved;
- assessing contractual protections, audit rights and monitoring mechanisms with suppliers and labour providers;
- strengthening documentation and evidence of risk assessments, mitigation decisions and oversight processes; and
- ensuring clear board-level engagement and ownership of forced labour and human rights risks.
Looking ahead
The IASC report marks a shift in emphasis from transparency to accountability. For UK employers, expectations in this area are likely to increase. The key question is how prepared organisations are for a model that requires active, evidenced human rights due diligence rather than narrative reporting. Early engagement will support both risk management and credibility in a rapidly evolving regulatory landscape.
