IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eme/aaajpp/aaaj-12-2019-4297.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Organisational responses to mandatory modern slavery disclosure legislation: a failure of experimentalist governance?

Author

Listed:
  • Michael Rogerson
  • Andrew Crane
  • Vivek Soundararajan
  • Johanne Grosvold
  • Charles H. Cho

Abstract

Purpose - This paper investigates how organisations are responding to mandatory modern slavery disclosure legislation. Experimentalist governance suggests that organisations faced with disclosure requirements such as those contained in the UK Modern Slavery Act 2015 will compete with one another, and in doing so, improve compliance. The authors seek to understand whether this is the case. Design/methodology/approach - This study is set in the UK public sector. The authors conduct interviews with over 25% of UK universities that are within the scope of the UK Modern Slavery Act 2015 and examine their reporting and disclosure under that legislation. Findings - The authors find that, contrary to the logic of experimentalist governance, universities' disclosures as reflected in their modern slavery statements are persistently poor on detail, lack variation and have led to little meaningful action to tackle modern slavery. They show that this is due to a herding effect that results in universities responding as a sector rather than independently; a built-in incapacity to effectively manage supply chains; and insufficient attention to the issue at the board level. The authors also identity important boundary conditions of experimentalist governance. Research limitations/implications - The generalisability of the authors’ findings is restricted to the public sector. Practical implications - In contexts where disclosure under the UK Modern Slavery Act 2015 is not a core offering of the sector, and where competition is limited, there is little incentive to engage in a “race to the top” in terms of disclosure. As such, pro-forma compliance prevails and the effectiveness of disclosure as a tool to drive change in supply chains to safeguard workers is relatively ineffective. Instead, organisations must develop better knowledge of their supply chains and executives and a more critical eye for modern slavery to be combatted effectively. Accountants and their systems and skills can facilitate this development. Originality/value - This is the first investigation of the organisational processes and activities which underpin disclosures related to modern slavery disclosure legislation. This paper contributes to the accounting and disclosure modern slavery literature by investigating public sector organisations' processes, activities and responses to mandatory reporting legislation on modern slavery.

Suggested Citation

  • Michael Rogerson & Andrew Crane & Vivek Soundararajan & Johanne Grosvold & Charles H. Cho, 2020. "Organisational responses to mandatory modern slavery disclosure legislation: a failure of experimentalist governance?," Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 33(7), pages 1505-1534, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:eme:aaajpp:aaaj-12-2019-4297
    DOI: 10.1108/AAAJ-12-2019-4297
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/AAAJ-12-2019-4297/full/html?utm_source=repec&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=repec
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers

    File URL: https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/AAAJ-12-2019-4297/full/pdf?utm_source=repec&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=repec
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1108/AAAJ-12-2019-4297?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Lyndie Bayne & Juliana Ng & Marvin Wee, 2022. "Supply chain disclosure: stakeholder preferences versus current practice in Australia," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 62(3), pages 3875-3911, September.
    2. Tantawy Moussa & Amir Allam & Mahmoud Elmarzouky, 2022. "Global modern slavery and sustainable development goals: Does institutional environment quality matter?," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(5), pages 2230-2244, July.
    3. Mark Christensen & Geoffrey Lamberton, 2022. "Accounting for Animal Welfare: Addressing Epistemic Vices During Live Sheep Export Voyages," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 180(1), pages 35-56, September.
    4. Muhammad Azizul Islam & Chris J. Van Staden, 2022. "Modern Slavery Disclosure Regulation and Global Supply Chains: Insights from Stakeholder Narratives on the UK Modern Slavery Act," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 180(2), pages 455-479, October.
    5. Christ, Katherine L. & Burritt, Roger L., 2023. "Exploring effectiveness of entity actions to eliminate modern slavery risk – Early Australian evidence," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 55(1).
    6. Gabriela Gutierrez-Huerter O & Stefan Gold & Alexander Trautrims, 2023. "Change in Rhetoric but not in Action? Framing of the Ethical Issue of Modern Slavery in a UK Sector at High Risk of Labor Exploitation," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 182(1), pages 35-58, January.
    7. Trina Saha & Rubel Miah & Mahfujur Rahman & Sumon Kumar Das & Emranul Hoque, 2023. "Disclosures for slavery accounting concerning SDG 8 and corporate attributes: a study on the banking industry of Bangladesh," Future Business Journal, Springer, vol. 9(1), pages 1-11, December.
    8. Walaa Wahid ElKelish*, 2023. "Accounting for Corporate Human Rights: Literature Review and Future Insights," Australian Accounting Review, CPA Australia, vol. 33(2), pages 203-226, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eme:aaajpp:aaaj-12-2019-4297. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Emerald Support (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.