Search

Operating through complex supply chains and multiple jurisdictions, today’s business enterprises can outsource manufacturing to different parts of the world where they can take advantage of low labour- and production costs. In the global quest for businesses to maximise their profits, deteriorating working conditions for offshore labour workers are increasing the risks of human rights abuses. Such abuses often take the form of ‘modern slavery’, which refers to situations of exploitation in which labour workers are trapped and unable to leave due to threats, violence, deception, abuse of power or other forms of coercion. In 2015, the United Kingdom (UK) enacted the Modern Slavery Act (MSA), aimed at combatting modern slavery by requiring business enterprises to be transparent with the steps they have taken to ensure that modern slavery is not taking place within their supply chains. By putting pressure on business enterprises to display their actions taken to address adverse human rights impacts, the MSA has brought the responsibility of business enterprises to conduct ‘human rights due diligence’ (HRDD) – as stipulated in the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs) - into domestic law. While the MSA has been regarded as a ‘world-leading instrument’ and a ‘historic milestone’ by the UK government, its effectiveness in counteracting modern slavery has been questioned in various studies, pointing towards a risk that the MSA is allowing human rights abuses to prevail under a form of a legal veil. Bearing in mind the country’s long colonial history, the enactment of the MSA can be seen as carrying an important symbolic value for the UK when it comes to taking accountability for human rights abuses committed overseas. However, adopting weak or ineffective legislation could instead, paradoxically, reflect an interest by the UK government to maintain beneficial trade relationships based on exploitative working conditions in a manner that reflects a contin

Operating through complex supply chains and multiple jurisdictions, today’s business enterprises can outsource manufacturing to different parts of the world where they can take advantage of low labour- and production costs. In the global quest for businesses to maximise their profits, deteriorating working conditions for offshore labour workers are increasing the risks of human rights abuses. Such abuses often take the form of ‘modern slavery’, which refers to situations of exploitation in which labour workers are trapped and unable to leave due to threats, violence, deception, abuse of power or other forms of coercion. In 2015, the United Kingdom (UK) enacted the Modern Slavery Act (MSA), aimed at combatting modern slavery by requiring business enterprises to be transparent with the steps they have taken to ensure that modern slavery is not taking place within their supply chains. By putting pressure on business enterprises to display their actions taken to address adverse human rights impacts, the MSA has brought the responsibility of business enterprises to conduct ‘human rights due diligence’ (HRDD) – as stipulated in the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs) - into domestic law. While the MSA has been regarded as a ‘world-leading instrument’ and a ‘historic milestone’ by the UK government, its effectiveness in counteracting modern slavery has been questioned in various studies, pointing towards a risk that the MSA is allowing human rights abuses to prevail under a form of a legal veil. Bearing in mind the country’s long colonial history, the enactment of the MSA can be seen as carrying an important symbolic value for the UK when it comes to taking accountability for human rights abuses committed overseas. However, adopting weak or ineffective legislation could instead, paradoxically, reflect an interest by the UK government to maintain beneficial trade relationships based on exploitative working conditions in a manner that reflects a contin

Business-related human rights violations are a recurring problem in the world. Just over 10 years ago, Sweden adopted the UN's guiding principles for business and human rights, in 2015 Sweden presented an action plan for business and human rights, and in 2016 there was a law regarding sustainability reporting for companies. The Swedish government repeatedly states that business and human rights go hand in hand and expresses high expectations for Swedish companies to respect human rights. In order to carry out the study of both the Swedish state's and Swedish companies' compliance with the UN's guiding principles, the Uyghurs' exposure to forced labor in Xinjiang and three Swedish companies are used as study objects. The result of the study leaves much to be desired from the Swedish state's side, as it acted very passively in the matter.

Business-related human rights violations are a recurring problem in the world. Just over 10 years ago, Sweden adopted the UN's guiding principles for business and human rights, in 2015 Sweden presented an action plan for business and human rights, and in 2016 there was a law regarding sustainability reporting for companies. The Swedish government repeatedly states that business and human rights go hand in hand and expresses high expectations for Swedish companies to respect human rights. In order to carry out the study of both the Swedish state's and Swedish companies' compliance with the UN's guiding principles, the Uyghurs' exposure to forced labor in Xinjiang and three Swedish companies are used as study objects. The result of the study leaves much to be desired from the Swedish state's side, as it acted very passively in the matter.