Modern Slavery Risk: How Much Comes Down to Politics?

Quantified rankings and indices as a way to measure ‘success’ in realms of human development, rights protection and social outcomes has rapidly expanded into the modern slavery space since the US developed the first Trafficking in Persons (TIP) Report in 2001. While these reports can be an effective tool for advocacy and pressuring governments into action, their utility as a robust measure of modern slavery risk in supply chain prioritisation is less reliable.

The representation of modern slavery ‘success’ through simple, easy to understand rankings and indices serves to suggest that modern slavery or other complex social issues are straightforward to understand. Condensing complex national environments and risk contexts renders historical processes of colonisation and resource exploitation by powerful countries invisible, and strips available data of its geopolitical context.

Perhaps the most apt example is that of China. The 2020 TIP Report lists the country as one that ‘does not meet’ minimum standards and is not ‘making significant efforts’ to do so. However, under the 2018 Global Slavery Index (GSI), it is recognised as one of the G20 countries taking steps to address modern slavery. It is not difficult to see how the US-China relationship could have some impact on the interpretation of China’s actions in combatting modern slavery and human trafficking. Significantly, countries such as China listed under Tier 3 under the TIP Report are prevented from accessing non-trade-related foreign assistance.

Single-value rankings and indicators can become an exercise of international diplomacy, directly influenced by geopolitical agendas. The use of the TIP as a tool of soft power is so extensive that Human Rights Watch has labelled it the ‘US Government’s principal diplomatic tool for engagement with foreign governments on human trafficking’. This can be better understood when looking at how countries such as Thailand moved from a Tier 3 country ‘failing’ in its response to human trafficking in 2015, to a Tier 1 country in 2018.

This rapid improvement in Thailand is largely attributed to their increasing cooperation with the USA and the acceptance of over 2 million US dollars in aid for improving things such as institutional capacity, prosecution and victim protection and rehabilitation (all actions favoured in TIP measures). Although they were ranked as Tier 2 in the 2020 TIP, this has been questioned due to their continued human rights abuses documented in the fishing industry.

Meanwhile, the role of more developed countries in perpetuating inequitable labour conditions and benefitting from exploitative cheap labour remains largely under-examined in these measures. Generally, this was because they tend to focus on the prevalence of slavery in a country and the government’s response, rather than looking at the drivers of slavery such as procurement policies. The Global Slavery Index (GSI), for example, only introduced analysis of the ways that G20 countries contribute to global slavery practices through supply chains in the 2018 GSI. Prior to this, modern slavery was largely represented as a problem primarily placed within the global South, with G20 and global North countries largely escaping evaluation.

With this in mind, overall indexes or rankings that provide a single point of reference should be treated with caution when considering which supplier countries to prioritise. The ranking of a particular country can have broad-ranging geostrategic implications that industry rankings do not, making political motivations a consideration that should be front of mind when looking to country-level rankings and indices.

Rather than looking to single-value indicators that can provide an oversimplified or one-dimensional understanding of an issue that is notoriously complex and multi-faceted means that many of the relevant influences important for businesses are obscured. Looking to indicators that present a more nuanced story of a country’s risk environment can provide a more accurate and useful tool for companies to engage in risk prioritisation of suppliers.