Abstract
The United Kingdom’s Modern Slavery Act 2015 introduced transparency requirements for businesses to report on efforts combating forced labour within their supply chains. However, mounting evidence suggests that standard social audits and statutory disclosure mechanisms frequently fail to detect genuine modern slavery risks, instead generating superficial paperwork compliance. This dissertation synthesises existing academic literature to examine which audit approaches effectively identify real exploitation rather than merely satisfying documentary requirements. Through systematic literature review, this study identifies three interconnected elements distinguishing effective detection methodologies: targeted, risk-based audits spanning full recruitment chains; deep worker engagement supported by local organisations; and robust governance frameworks embedding audits within comprehensive human rights due diligence. Findings demonstrate that conventional announced audits relying on checklists and document review consistently overlook coercive labour practices, particularly in multi-tier supply chains employing migrant workers through intermediaries. Conversely, approaches incorporating unannounced visits, independent worker interviews probing specific exploitation indicators, and collaboration with civil society organisations significantly improve detection rates. This research concludes that meaningful modern slavery compliance demands fundamental transformation from tick-box exercises toward worker-centred, governance-embedded methodologies addressing root causes throughout labour supply chains.
Introduction
Modern slavery represents one of the most egregious human rights violations persisting in contemporary global commerce. The International Labour Organization estimates that approximately 27.6 million people worldwide are trapped in forced labour situations, with private sector exploitation accounting for the majority of cases (International Labour Organization, 2022). Within the United Kingdom, the National Crime Agency consistently identifies labour exploitation as the most prevalent form of modern slavery, with victims frequently embedded within legitimate business supply chains spanning agriculture, food processing, construction, manufacturing, and service sectors (National Crime Agency, 2023).
The enactment of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 represented a landmark legislative intervention, positioning the United Kingdom as an international pioneer in requiring commercial transparency regarding supply chain labour practices. Section 54 of the Act mandates that businesses with annual turnover exceeding £36 million publish annual statements detailing steps taken to ensure slavery and human trafficking are absent from their operations and supply chains. This transparency-in-supply-chains provision was predicated upon assumptions that disclosure obligations would generate reputational pressures incentivising genuine corporate action against exploitation.
However, nearly a decade following implementation, substantial academic evidence demonstrates that statutory disclosure requirements have not achieved their transformative potential. Research consistently reveals that modern slavery statements frequently constitute boilerplate documents devoid of substantive content, whilst the social audits upon which corporations rely to verify supply chain compliance routinely fail to identify forced labour indicators (LeBaron, Lister and Dauvergne, 2017; Pinnington, Benstead and Meehan, 2022). The disconnect between compliance paperwork and genuine risk detection has prompted scholars and practitioners to interrogate fundamental assumptions underlying conventional audit methodologies.
This failure matters profoundly, both ethically and practically. Ethically, ineffective detection mechanisms perpetuate exploitation whilst creating misleading impressions of corporate responsibility. Practically, businesses face escalating legal, reputational, and operational risks as regulatory frameworks strengthen internationally, stakeholder expectations intensify, and instances of undetected supply chain slavery generate substantial adverse consequences when subsequently exposed.
Understanding what distinguishes effective modern slavery detection from performative compliance has therefore become an urgent scholarly and practical priority. This dissertation addresses this imperative by synthesising existing research to identify audit approaches demonstrating genuine capability to surface modern slavery risks within UK-linked supply chains, distinguishing these from methodologies generating paperwork without meaningful detection outcomes.
Aim and objectives
Research aim
This dissertation aims to critically examine and synthesise academic evidence concerning modern slavery compliance auditing within United Kingdom supply chains, identifying which methodological approaches effectively detect genuine exploitation risks rather than merely generating documentary compliance.
Research objectives
To achieve this aim, four specific objectives guide this investigation:
1. To critically evaluate the limitations of conventional social audit methodologies and transparency-based regulatory approaches in detecting modern slavery within complex supply chains.
2. To identify and analyse the characteristics of targeted, risk-based audit approaches that demonstrate enhanced effectiveness in surfacing forced labour indicators.
3. To examine the role of worker engagement and local stakeholder collaboration in improving modern slavery detection and remediation outcomes.
4. To evaluate the governance frameworks and organisational embedding necessary to transform audits from isolated compliance activities into components of effective human rights due diligence systems.
Methodology
This dissertation employs a systematic literature synthesis methodology to address the stated research aim and objectives. Given the nature of the research question—examining comparative effectiveness of audit approaches across diverse organisational and sectoral contexts—a comprehensive review of existing academic evidence represents the most appropriate methodological strategy.
Methodological approach
The research adopts an integrative review approach, synthesising findings from empirical studies, theoretical analyses, and practice-oriented scholarship to construct a coherent understanding of effective modern slavery detection methodologies. This approach enables triangulation across multiple evidence sources whilst accommodating the methodological diversity characterising this interdisciplinary field.
Source selection criteria
Literature selection prioritised peer-reviewed academic publications from recognised scholarly journals, supplemented by authoritative reports from governmental bodies, international organisations, and established research institutions. Sources were evaluated against explicit quality criteria including methodological rigour, relevance to UK supply chain contexts, and publication in reputable outlets.
Primary databases searched included Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar, using search terms encompassing modern slavery, forced labour, supply chain auditing, social audits, transparency legislation, human rights due diligence, and related terminology. Reference list mining from key publications identified additional relevant sources.
Analytical framework
Thematic analysis organised extracted evidence around conceptual categories emerging from iterative engagement with the literature. Three primary analytical themes structured the synthesis: audit methodology characteristics (scope, methods, targeting); stakeholder engagement dimensions (worker voice, civil society collaboration); and governance embedding (organisational accountability, regulatory integration). This framework enabled systematic comparison between conventional and enhanced approaches whilst maintaining analytical coherence.
Methodological limitations
Certain limitations warrant acknowledgement. The synthesised literature derives predominantly from Western academic contexts, potentially limiting applicability to supply chain contexts in different regulatory environments. Additionally, challenges in measuring modern slavery detection effectiveness—given the hidden nature of exploitation—mean that evidence regarding audit efficacy frequently relies upon proxy indicators rather than direct outcome measurement.
Literature review
The limitations of conventional social auditing
Conventional social auditing emerged during the 1990s as corporations sought mechanisms to verify supplier compliance with labour standards following high-profile scandals involving sweatshop conditions in global supply chains. These methodologies typically involve scheduled site visits by third-party auditors examining documentation, observing working conditions, and conducting brief worker interviews against standardised checklists (LeBaron, Lister and Dauvergne, 2017).
Substantial evidence demonstrates that standard social audits and Modern Slavery Act-style reporting rarely detect modern slavery, especially in multi-tier, migrant-labour-intensive supply chains (Benstead, Hendry and Stevenson, 2020; Pinnington, Benstead and Meehan, 2022; Ford and Nolan, 2020; Hicks, 2021; Strand et al., 2023; Schaper and Pollach, 2021). Several structural factors explain this systematic failure.
First, conventional audits typically focus on Tier 1 suppliers with whom buying organisations maintain direct contractual relationships, whilst modern slavery frequently occurs deeper within supply chains where visibility diminishes and accountability structures attenuate. Labour exploitation predominantly affects workers employed through recruitment agencies, subcontractors, and informal intermediaries operating beyond the reach of standard supplier assessments (Ford and Nolan, 2020; Strand et al., 2023).
Second, announced audit visits enable problematic suppliers to prepare presentations masking exploitative practices. Workers may be coached on appropriate responses, documentation fabricated, and visible violations temporarily rectified. The performative character of scheduled audits fundamentally compromises their investigative capacity (Benstead, Hendry and Stevenson, 2020).
Third, checklist-based methodologies privilege standardised indicators amenable to systematic documentation rather than context-sensitive indicators of coercion, deception, and exploitation. Modern slavery manifests through subtle control mechanisms—debt bondage, document confiscation, threats against family members, psychological manipulation—that evade detection through compliance frameworks designed to identify more visible violations such as inadequate fire exits or unpaid overtime (LeBaron, Lister and Dauvergne, 2017).
The regulatory gap: transparency without accountability
The Modern Slavery Act’s transparency mechanism embodied assumptions that disclosure obligations would generate market-based incentives for genuine corporate action. By requiring public statements, legislators anticipated that reputational concerns, investor pressure, and consumer awareness would motivate substantive supply chain interventions (HM Government, 2015).
Empirical evidence challenges these assumptions. Analysis of published modern slavery statements reveals widespread deficiencies in content quality, specificity, and substantive commitment. Pinnington, Benstead and Meehan (2022) found that statements frequently comprise generic assertions lacking meaningful detail regarding actual supply chain risks, detection methodologies employed, or remediation actions undertaken. Many organisations treat Section 54 compliance as a minimal legal requirement satisfied through boilerplate language rather than as a catalyst for genuine human rights due diligence.
The legislation’s design contributes to these outcomes. The Act specifies what statements should cover but establishes no minimum content standards, imposes no penalties for inadequate statements, and requires no verification of claims made. This permissive framework enables organisations to satisfy legal requirements through performative compliance whilst avoiding substantive engagement with modern slavery risks (Nolan and Pryde, 2024; Schaper and Pollach, 2021).
Furthermore, reliance on outsourced social audits without robust human rights due diligence leads to superficial, symptom-focused findings (Ford and Nolan, 2020; LeBaron, Lister and Dauvergne, 2017; Hicks, 2021; Nolan and Pryde, 2024). The discrepancy between human rights due diligence frameworks articulated in international standards—notably the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights—and the limited scope of social audit regimes creates fundamental gaps in corporate approaches to modern slavery detection.
Targeted, risk-based audit methodologies
More effective practice clusters around a fundamentally different audit model characterised by targeting, comprehensive scope, and methodological diversity. Targeted audits focused on high-risk sites and sectors, rather than routine, one-size-fits-all checklists, are more likely to surface indicators of modern slavery (Benstead, Hendry and Stevenson, 2020; Strand et al., 2023).
Risk-based targeting involves preliminary assessment identifying supply chain nodes presenting elevated exploitation probabilities based on factors including sector characteristics, geographic location, labour force composition, and previous compliance history. Resources concentrate on high-risk areas rather than dispersing across routine verification of lower-risk operations. This prioritisation enables deeper investigation where exploitation is most likely whilst acknowledging resource constraints inherent in complex global supply chains.
Effective audits trace the full recruitment and labour-supply chain from home country to workplace, not just on-site conditions, explicitly including third-party labour agencies and intermediaries (Benstead, Hendry and Stevenson, 2020; Ford and Nolan, 2020; Hicks, 2021; Strand et al., 2023). This end-to-end scope addresses the fundamental limitation of conventional audits focusing narrowly on workplace conditions whilst ignoring recruitment processes where debt bondage, deception, and document confiscation frequently originate.
Better performers use diverse due-diligence methods including desk analysis, field audits, and specialised tools instead of relying on a single template or self-assessment (Esoimeme, 2020; Pinnington, Benstead and Meehan, 2022; Strand et al., 2023). Methodological pluralism enables triangulation across evidence sources, verification of documentary claims through field observation, and adaptation to varying contextual circumstances.
Worker-centred engagement approaches
Central to effective detection is meaningful worker engagement extending beyond the perfunctory interviews characterising conventional audits. A more successful model uses a parallel audit structure: independent interviews with workers and management plus document review, specifically probing fees, debt, passports and bank cards, and control over movement (Benstead, Hendry and Stevenson, 2020; Ford and Nolan, 2020; Strand et al., 2023).
This parallel structure enables auditors to compare worker accounts with management representations and documentary evidence, identifying inconsistencies indicating concealed exploitation. Independent worker interviews conducted away from supervisory observation, in workers’ native languages, and by interviewers trained in trauma-informed techniques substantially improve detection of coercive practices that workers may otherwise fear disclosing.
Specific probing areas reflect evidence regarding common exploitation indicators. Recruitment fee debt represents a primary modern slavery mechanism, with workers trapped through obligations to repay inflated fees charged by recruitment agents. Document confiscation—withholding passports, identity cards, or bank cards—restricts workers’ ability to leave exploitative situations. Restrictions on movement, communication, or accommodation choice indicate coercive control characteristic of forced labour.
Collaboration with local NGOs and worker organisations improves access, trust, and remediation pathways, and helps interpret subtle coercion patterns (Benstead, Hendry and Stevenson, 2020; Meehan and Pinnington, 2021; Hicks, 2021; Strand et al., 2023). Local organisations possess contextual knowledge, language capabilities, and established community relationships that external auditors typically lack. Their involvement enhances worker willingness to disclose exploitation whilst enabling nuanced interpretation of culturally-specific coercion mechanisms.
Proxy indicators and observable violations
Even when direct forced labour indicators remain concealed, certain observable workplace violations correlate with elevated modern slavery risk. On-site audits that attend to fire safety, excessive hours, and pay irregularities flag facilities with elevated modern slavery risk, even when forced labour is hidden (Auld, Ryan and Wang, 2025; Ryan, 2025; Strand et al., 2023).
This correlation reflects underlying patterns whereby suppliers willing to violate visible labour standards frequently also engage in more serious but less observable exploitation. Fire safety violations, systematic overtime exceeding legal limits, and wage payment irregularities thus function as proxy indicators warranting deeper investigation even absent direct forced labour evidence. Sophisticated audit approaches incorporate these proxies into risk assessment frameworks rather than treating them as discrete compliance issues.
Governance embedding and organisational accountability
Effective modern slavery detection requires embedding audits within broader organisational governance frameworks rather than treating them as isolated compliance activities. Stronger regimes couple audits with clear accountability and key performance indicators on effectiveness, not just activity (Meehan and Pinnington, 2021; Pinnington, Benstead and Meehan, 2022; Voss et al., 2019; Schaper and Pollach, 2021).
This distinction between activity metrics and effectiveness metrics proves crucial. Conventional approaches frequently measure compliance success through activity indicators—number of audits conducted, percentage of suppliers covered, statements published—without assessing whether these activities generate meaningful detection outcomes. Organisations demonstrating stronger performance establish indicators directly measuring identification of modern slavery risks, remediation of identified violations, and improvement in worker welfare outcomes.
Whistleblowing and grievance mechanisms that actually reach workers, and are tracked, constitute essential governance components (Strand et al., 2023; Schaper and Pollach, 2021). Effective mechanisms provide accessible channels through which workers, community members, and other stakeholders can report concerns directly to buying organisations, bypassing intermediaries who may suppress complaints. Tracking systems monitor mechanism utilisation, response times, and remediation outcomes.
Board-level oversight and integration into purchasing practices ensure organisational accountability (Stevenson and Cole, 2018; Voss et al., 2019; Hicks, 2021; Strand et al., 2023; Schaper and Pollach, 2021). Without senior leadership engagement, modern slavery compliance frequently remains siloed within corporate social responsibility functions disconnected from core commercial decision-making. Integration into purchasing practices—incorporating modern slavery considerations into supplier selection, contract terms, and commercial relationships—establishes accountability extending beyond compliance documentation.
The strategic ambiguity problem
Research by Meehan and Pinnington (2021) identifies strategic ambiguity as a significant barrier to effective modern slavery response. Organisational actors may maintain deliberate uncertainty regarding supply chain practices, enabling plausible deniability whilst avoiding accountability for exploitation occurring within commercial relationships. Conventional audit approaches accommodate this ambiguity by accepting documentary compliance as evidence of satisfactory practices, whilst more effective methodologies actively probe beyond surface presentations to challenge strategic obscuration.
Discussion
Addressing the detection deficit
The synthesised evidence reveals a fundamental disconnect between conventional compliance approaches and genuine modern slavery detection. This disconnect explains the paradox whereby corporations expend substantial resources on social auditing and transparency reporting whilst exploitation persists undetected within their supply chains.
Conventional methodologies fail not through implementation deficiencies but through conceptual limitations. Checklist-based, single-site, documentation-focused audits are structurally incapable of detecting modern slavery because exploitation manifests through coercive relationships, deceptive recruitment, and psychological control mechanisms invisible to compliance frameworks designed for different purposes. The evidence indicates that more effective detection requires fundamental reconceptualisation rather than incremental improvement of existing approaches.
The three-element model emerging from this synthesis—targeted risk-based scope, worker-centred engagement, and governance embedding—represents this reconceptualisation. Each element addresses specific limitations of conventional approaches whilst collectively constituting an integrated methodology capable of surfacing genuine exploitation.
From compliance to due diligence
The distinction between compliance-based and due diligence-based approaches emerges as analytically central. Compliance frameworks ask whether organisations satisfy specified requirements—publishing statements, conducting audits, maintaining documentation. Due diligence frameworks ask whether organisations take reasonable steps to identify, prevent, and address adverse human rights impacts throughout their operations and relationships.
This distinction explains why statutory transparency requirements have not achieved transformative outcomes. Section 54 of the Modern Slavery Act establishes compliance obligations that organisations can satisfy through minimal documentary effort without substantive engagement with modern slavery risks. The legislation does not mandate human rights due diligence; it merely requires reporting on whatever steps organisations voluntarily undertake.
International developments suggest movement toward mandatory due diligence frameworks. The European Union’s Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive establishes binding obligations for companies to identify and address human rights and environmental risks throughout value chains (European Parliament, 2024). Similar legislative initiatives in Germany, France, and elsewhere reflect growing recognition that transparency alone proves insufficient to drive meaningful corporate action.
For UK-linked supply chains, this regulatory trajectory has significant implications. Organisations currently relying on compliance-oriented approaches may face increasing legal, commercial, and reputational risks as due diligence expectations strengthen internationally. The evidence synthesised here provides guidance for organisations seeking to develop genuinely effective modern slavery detection capabilities ahead of regulatory mandates.
The worker voice imperative
Worker engagement emerges from this analysis as the most critical differentiator between effective and ineffective detection methodologies. Modern slavery fundamentally involves exploitation of workers; detection therefore requires accessing worker experiences, perceptions, and knowledge. Methodologies excluding or marginalising worker voice systematically overlook the primary evidence source regarding their own exploitation.
The practical implications extend beyond audit methodology. Effective worker engagement requires investment in accessible grievance mechanisms, relationships with worker organisations and civil society, language capabilities enabling communication with migrant workers, and trauma-informed interview techniques. These investments exceed the cost parameters of conventional social auditing, potentially explaining why many organisations prefer less effective but cheaper compliance approaches.
However, the costs of ineffective detection—legal liability, reputational damage, remediation expenses when exploitation is subsequently exposed—likely exceed the additional investment required for worker-centred methodologies. Organisations making cost-based decisions to favour cheaper compliance approaches may be miscalculating total risk-adjusted costs.
Governance as prerequisite
The evidence demonstrates that audit methodology improvements prove insufficient without corresponding governance transformation. Effective audits embedded within inadequate governance frameworks generate findings that organisations lack capacity or incentive to act upon. Conversely, robust governance frameworks create organisational demand for effective detection whilst establishing accountability for remediation outcomes.
Board-level oversight proves particularly significant. When modern slavery compliance remains delegated to operational functions without senior leadership engagement, it lacks the authority and resources necessary for meaningful supply chain intervention. Board oversight establishes accountability at the highest organisational level, integrates modern slavery considerations into strategic decision-making, and signals commitment influencing behaviour throughout the organisation.
Integration with purchasing practices addresses the commercial dynamics frequently driving exploitation. Supplier selection based predominantly on price and delivery performance creates incentives for cost reduction through labour exploitation. Incorporating modern slavery considerations into supplier evaluation, contract terms, and commercial relationship management aligns commercial incentives with human rights outcomes.
Limitations and caveats
Several limitations warrant acknowledgement. First, the synthesised evidence derives predominantly from academic research; direct outcome measurement demonstrating improved exploitation detection through recommended methodologies remains limited. The hidden nature of modern slavery creates inherent difficulties in measuring detection effectiveness.
Second, resource implications of recommended approaches may present barriers for smaller organisations lacking capacity for sophisticated due diligence programmes. Whilst the evidence clearly indicates superior effectiveness of targeted, worker-centred methodologies, implementation feasibility varies across organisational contexts.
Third, sectoral and geographic variation suggests that effective approaches require contextual adaptation rather than uniform application. Supply chain structures, labour market characteristics, and regulatory environments differ substantially across industries and locations; methodologies effective in one context may require modification elsewhere.
Conclusions
This dissertation has critically examined academic evidence concerning modern slavery compliance auditing within United Kingdom supply chains, addressing the central question of which approaches effectively detect genuine exploitation rather than merely generating documentary compliance.
Regarding the first objective—evaluating limitations of conventional approaches—the evidence demonstrates that standard social audits and transparency-based regulatory mechanisms systematically fail to detect modern slavery. Structural characteristics including narrow site focus, announced visits, checklist methodologies, and minimal worker engagement render conventional audits incapable of identifying coercive labour practices manifesting through debt bondage, document confiscation, deception, and psychological control.
Regarding the second objective—identifying effective targeted approaches—the evidence identifies risk-based targeting, full recruitment chain scope, and methodological diversity as characteristics distinguishing more effective audit practice. Concentrating resources on high-risk supply chain nodes, tracing labour supply from recruitment through employment, and employing multiple verification methods substantially improve detection capability.
Regarding the third objective—examining worker engagement and stakeholder collaboration—the evidence establishes meaningful worker voice as the critical differentiator between effective and ineffective detection. Parallel audit structures enabling independent worker interviews, specific probing of exploitation indicators, and collaboration with local NGOs and worker organisations significantly enhance identification of coercive practices that conventional methodologies overlook.
Regarding the fourth objective—evaluating governance embedding—the evidence demonstrates that audit effectiveness depends upon organisational context. Effective detection requires integration within comprehensive human rights due diligence frameworks incorporating board-level accountability, effectiveness-focused performance indicators, accessible grievance mechanisms, and alignment between purchasing practices and human rights commitments.
To detect real modern slavery risk in UK-linked supply chains, audits must shift from generic compliance checks to targeted, risk-based, worker-centred inquiries embedded in genuine human rights due diligence and governance, with recruitment chains, intermediaries, and remediation all in scope.
These findings carry significant implications for policy and practice. Regulatory frameworks relying upon transparency without accountability generate paperwork compliance rather than genuine risk detection. Organisations genuinely committed to modern slavery elimination must invest in methodologies extending beyond conventional social auditing toward the worker-centred, governance-embedded approaches identified through this synthesis.
Future research should address several priorities. Longitudinal studies tracking detection outcomes following methodology transitions would strengthen the evidence base regarding comparative effectiveness. Investigation of implementation pathways enabling smaller organisations to adopt recommended approaches would enhance practical applicability. Examination of emerging mandatory due diligence regimes would illuminate regulatory effectiveness in driving improved corporate practice.
The persistence of modern slavery within contemporary supply chains represents a profound ethical failure demanding urgent response. The evidence synthesised here provides guidance for organisations, regulators, and practitioners seeking to move beyond performative compliance toward genuine detection and elimination of exploitation.
References
Auld, J., Ryan, S. and Wang, Q. (2025) ‘Exploring effective indicators of modern slavery risk: on-site audit insight’, *Australian Energy Producers Journal*. https://doi.org/10.1071/ep24205
Benstead, A., Hendry, L. and Stevenson, M. (2020) ‘Detecting and remediating modern slavery in supply chains: a targeted audit approach’, *Production Planning & Control*, 32(13), pp. 1136–1157. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2020.1795290
Esoimeme, E. (2020) ‘Using the risk-based approach to curb modern slavery in the supply chain’, *Journal of Financial Crime*, 27(1), pp. 313–322. https://doi.org/10.1108/jfc-05-2019-0056
European Parliament (2024) *Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive*. Available at: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/topics/en/article/20210504STO02409/due-diligence-how-the-eu-wants-firms-to-respect-human-rights-and-environment (Accessed: 15 January 2025).
Ford, J. and Nolan, J. (2020) ‘Regulating transparency on human rights and modern slavery in corporate supply chains: the discrepancy between human rights due diligence and the social audit’, *Australian Journal of Human Rights*, 26(1), pp. 27–45. https://doi.org/10.1080/1323238x.2020.1761633
Hicks, J. (2021) *Approaches to Combatting Modern Slavery in Supply Chains*. K4D Helpdesk Report. Brighton: Institute of Development Studies. https://doi.org/10.19088/k4d.2022.004
HM Government (2015) *Modern Slavery Act 2015*. London: The Stationery Office. Available at: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/30/contents/enacted (Accessed: 15 January 2025).
International Labour Organization (2022) *Global Estimates of Modern Slavery: Forced Labour and Forced Marriage*. Geneva: International Labour Organization. Available at: https://www.ilo.org/publications/global-estimates-modern-slavery-forced-labour-and-forced-marriage (Accessed: 15 January 2025).
LeBaron, G., Lister, J. and Dauvergne, P. (2017) ‘Governing Global Supply Chain Sustainability through the Ethical Audit Regime’, *Globalizations*, 14(6), pp. 958–975. https://doi.org/10.1080/14747731.2017.1304008
Meehan, J. and Pinnington, B. (2021) ‘Modern slavery in supply chains: insights through strategic ambiguity’, *International Journal of Operations & Production Management*, 41(2), pp. 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijopm-05-2020-0292
National Crime Agency (2023) *National Strategic Assessment of Serious and Organised Crime 2023*. London: National Crime Agency. Available at: https://www.nationalcrimeagency.gov.uk/who-we-are/publications/632-national-strategic-assessment-of-serious-and-organised-crime-2023/file (Accessed: 15 January 2025).
Nolan, J. and Pryde, S. (2024) ‘Towards the Effective Regulation of Modern Slavery in Global Supply Chains: Lessons Learned from the UK and Australia and Future Directions’, *International Criminology*, 4, pp. 371–382. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43576-024-00144-2
Pinnington, B., Benstead, A. and Meehan, J. (2022) ‘Transparency in Supply Chains (TISC): Assessing and Improving the Quality of Modern Slavery Statements’, *Journal of Business Ethics*, 182, pp. 619–636. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-022-05037-w
Ryan, S. (2025) ‘Session 9. Oral Presentation for: Exploring effective indicators of modern slavery risk: on-site audit insight’, *Australian Energy Producers Journal*. https://doi.org/10.1071/ep24431
Schaper, S. and Pollach, I. (2021) ‘Modern slavery statements: From regulation to substantive supply chain reporting’, *Journal of Cleaner Production*, 313, 127872. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.127872
Stevenson, M. and Cole, R. (2018) ‘Modern Slavery in Supply Chains: A Secondary Data Analysis of Detection, Remediation, and Disclosure’, *Supply Chain Management: An International Journal*, 23(2), pp. 81–99. https://doi.org/10.1108/scm-11-2017-0382
Strand, V., Lotfi, M., Flynn, A. and Walker, H. (2023) ‘A systematic literature review of modern slavery in supply chain management: State of the art, framework development and research opportunities’, *Journal of Cleaner Production*, 418, 140301. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.140301
Voss, H., Davis, M., Sumner, M., Waite, L., Ras, I., Singhal, D. and Jog, D. (2019) ‘International supply chains: compliance and engagement with the Modern Slavery Act’, *Journal of the British Academy*, 7(s1), pp. 61–76. https://doi.org/10.5871/jba/007s1.061
