Discussion: Governance Mechanisms and Accountability in Global Supply Chains
Proponents of mandatory transparency frameworks argue that publishing modern slavery statements drives meaningful organizational accountability and motivates commercial entities to eradicate labor exploitation across global operations. According to this perspective, public reporting empowers stakeholders and creates reputational incentives for firms to audit supply tiers and implement robust sourcing standards. However, disclosure obligations frequently produce symbolic compliance rather than substantive remediation. As Nolan (2018) demonstrates, mandated corporate disclosure laws often harden human rights expectations in soft law, yet remain purely procedural in execution; generating substantive compliance requires explicit statutory due diligence mandates and active collaboration with external stakeholders. Without enforceable due diligence requirements, corporate transparency mechanisms function as reputational shields that mask ongoing labor abuses beneath carefully curated reporting narratives. Furthermore, Gold et al. (2015) observe that standard corporate social responsibility models face inherent structural limitations because standard commercial procurement practices routinely reinforce the cost pressures that foster modern slavery. While advocates contend that public transparency empowers civil society to penalize irresponsible corporations, narrative reporting alone fails to disrupt complex supplier networks where forced labor remains deeply entrenched. Merely examining espoused corporate policies rather than enacted workplace practices creates an illusion of accountability while structural exploitation persists unaddressed (Gold et al., 2015). Consequently, moving beyond symbolic rhetoric requires regulatory governance to transition from voluntary disclosures to mandatory, cross-jurisdictional due diligence regimes backed by institutional monitoring and enforceable legal sanctions.