Discursive Tensions in Corporate Codes of Ethics and Modern Slavery Statements

Entities are required to publish statements to show compliance with the California Transparency in Supply Chains Act (2010), the UK Modern Slavery Act (2015), and the Australian Modern Slavery Act (2018). Such statements become an integral part of the entities’ ethical discourse. Entities must address a twofold challenge. First, the concepts related to modern slavery, forced labor, child labor, and human trafficking should be precisely defined. Second, there should be conceptual continuity between company codes of ethics and modern slavery statements. This chapter explores the presence/absence of an “umbrella concept” (such as forced labor or modern slavery) and the continuity/discontinuity between the codes of ethics, codes of conduct, and modern slavery statements. In this exploratory study, most companies were found to embrace an umbrella concept (either forced labor or modern slavery). In a few companies, there was a shift of meaning from the absence of an umbrella concept (in corporate codes of ethics) to the presence of an umbrella concept (in modern slavery statements). In other cases, the absence of an umbrella concept was associated with vague definitions of modern slavery, forced labor, child labor, and human trafficking practices. Moreover, the propensity of multinationals to develop their ethical discourse about modern slavery with a “silo effect” perspective created a discursive tension that should not be neglected when analyzing modern slavery and human trafficking statements.