Tackling modern slavery practices in business relationships: a framework for creating social value

An estimated 50 million people around the world are currently trapped in some form of modern slavery. Despite the introduction of legal frameworks and regulatory pressure, the problem persists globally. Modern slavery refers to exploitative labor practices involving coercive control of individuals through threats, violence, and manipulation to obtain personal or commercial gain. While these practices vary in form, their persistence often depends on the conditions in which they occur, such as the ways businesses interact with each other. Thus, tackling modern slavery may require a shift in focus from the actions of individual firms to the business relationships that enable exploitation.Research on modern slavery is at a nascent stage. In this paper, Siemieniako et al. (2025) develop a five-phase process for building the competencies needed to combat modern slavery within business relationships. Within these phases, the authors outline ten exemplar anti-modern slavery practices that serve as mechanisms to mitigate exploitation. Their conceptual framework links these practices to both desirable and undesirable power consequences, emphasizing how they can shape broader efforts toward social value creation.Efforts to combat modern slavery have often focused on the actions of individual firms. However, this perspective overlooks the possibility that exploitation may be rooted in the relationships between organizations. It is within these relationships that power is often exercised, such as when a large buyer exerts pressure on a smaller supplier. Power imbalances of this kind can create conditions that allow modern slavery to take place, especially when dominant firms prioritize commercial objectives over ethical responsibilities. At the same time, these relationships also offer opportunities to create social value, particularly when power is used legitimately and partners work toward shared goals (e.g., having ethical practices). The authors argue that viewing relationships as the primary unit of analysis offers a more accurate understanding of how modern slavery emerges and how it can be addressed.To better understand how modern slavery can be addressed through business relationships, the authors propose a five-phase process that includes ten anti-modern slavery practices. The remainder of this review provides a summary of these practices and how they contribute to social value creation.The first phase of the framework is “create,” which focuses on establishing internal structures to address modern slavery risks. The first practice involves developing formal policies and procedures that explicitly prohibit modern slavery, aligned with international due diligence standards. These policies enhance the buyer’s structural power, allowing them to set clearer expectations and exert greater influence across the supply chain. However, if these standards are poorly communicated or enforced, they can result in supplier resistance and superficial compliance. The second practice involves assigning responsibility for anti-slavery efforts to a senior executive. This ensures oversight, drives internal accountability, and signals commitment. However, such appointments risk becoming symbolic if not backed by meaningful action from the executive.The second phase, “develop,” focuses on building safeguards into business relationships. The first practice is establishing grievance mechanisms that allow workers and communities to safely report labor abuses. When designed well, these systems empower vulnerable stakeholders, reduce power asymmetries, and create transparency. But if these mechanisms are burdensome or fail to protect whistleblowers, they may discourage reporting and undermine efforts. The second practice involves adding human rights clauses to supplier contracts. These clauses formalize expectations around labor practices, promote transparency, and give buyers legitimate leverage to hold partners accountable. However, if misused or over-enforced, they backfire, prompting superficial compliance, downstream outsourcing, or buyer inaction due to cost concerns.The third phase, “combine,” emphasizes building coalitions and shared governance structures. The first practice involves establishing partnerships with NGOs, industry bodies, and public agencies to advocate for stronger regulatory protections and systemic change. These collaborations can shift power balances, foster transparency, and create opportunities for social value co-creation. However, they can falter when power asymmetries persist. For instance, this can occur when businesses dominate the agenda or if NGOs become overly reliant on corporate support. The second practice entails participation in multistakeholder initiatives, such as certification and licensing schemes. These efforts establish shared standards, enable oversight through audits and inspections, and signal ethical commitment to stakeholders. When credible and independently enforced, they generate normative pressure. However, if companies treat these schemes as symbolic or if oversight bodies lack influence, their structural power may erode, undermining the legitimacy and effectiveness of such initiatives.The fourth phase, “exchange,” focuses on sharing knowledge and building transparency. The first practice involves requiring supplier disclosures, such as audit reports or sourcing details. These efforts increase visibility into labor conditions and strengthen the influence of both buyers and civil society actors. However, if poorly implemented, they may prompt suppliers to conceal practices or resort to surface-level compliance. The second practice centers on horizontal collaboration, which refers to cooperation among peer firms to jointly address labor risks. Through shared audits, information exchange, and industry benchmarks, companies can reduce duplication and foster collective responsibility. When successful, these efforts shift norms across supply chains and support social value creation. But if dominated by powerful firms or lacking inclusiveness, such collaborations risk reinforcing existing power imbalances rather than solving them.The final phase, “divest,” addresses the difficult but sometimes necessary step of ending relationships with actors unwilling to tackle modern slavery. The first practice involves removing suppliers who fail to meet anti-slavery standards, particularly after remediation efforts have failed. While such decisions can enhance a buyer’s structural power and reinforce ethical commitments, they may also provoke resistance or shift burdens onto vulnerable suppliers. The second practice involves exiting markets where regulatory systems fail to prevent forced labor. These withdrawals can send strong ethical signals, amplify reputational pressure across industries, and empower broader reform. Yet, they also carry risks, such as leaving workers more vulnerable or losing leverage to advocate for change from within.Together, the authors’ framework offers a structured approach to tackling modern slavery through business relationships, showing how practices across five phases can reshape inter-firm dynamics and contribute to meaningful social value creation.This review is based on “Examining anti-modern slavery practices in business relationships and networks: power consequences and social value creation perspectives” by Dariusz Siemieniako, Natalia Szablewska, Krzysztof Kubacki and Hannu Makkonen, published in the Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing.