Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Using sociotechnical systems (STS) theory, this article offers a critical perspective on how the interplay between social and technical systems in supply chains can be leveraged to gain valuable insights into addressing risks related to modern slavery. It elaborates on the complex recursive interactions among various elements of STS, shedding light on the emergence, perpetuation, and diffusion of modern slavery, as well as the sociotechnical interventions available within supply chains. We develop a framework that conceptualizes the risk of modern slavery as the outcome of interactions among multiple systems, providing guidance for future research, policy development, and managerial strategies to address this pressing societal challenge. Importantly, multistakeholder initiatives, combining innovative approaches to both social and technical governance, are expected to play a crucial role in mitigating modern slavery risks.

Keywords

Modern Slavery Forced Labor Labor Exploitation Work Systems Supply Chain Sociotechnical Systems

1. Background

Issues related to social sustainability, particularly those concerning human rights, fair labor practices and decent work, have gained increasing prominence in both research and practice in production and operations management (e.g., Corbett, 2024; Kougkoulos et al., 2021; Simpson et al., 2021; Sunar and Swaminathan, 2022). Modern slavery is a multifaceted umbrella term that encompasses severe forms of labor exploitation, including forced and child labor (Davidson, 2015; Vanpoucke and Klassen, 2023). Moreover, issues such as paying a living wage (LW) are relevant to modern slavery in supply chains, as they can contribute to the fight against forced and child labor (Flake et al., 2019). These modern slavery practices not only violate labor rights but also bring to light working and living conditions that contradict human dignity (International Labor Organization [ILO], 2023). Modern slavery affects around 50 million individuals globally, and many are part of multitier, complex supply chains. According to the latest global estimates, out of the 27.6 million individuals subjected to forced labor, 17.3 million are within the private sector (ILO, 2023). Slavery conditions are fueled by vulnerabilities and inequalities, in addition to regulatory and governance gaps. Despite increased policy and business attention, the latest Global Slavery Index in 2023 highlights that cases of modern slavery have been increasing. The COVID-19 pandemic further amplified these challenges as priorities shifted toward preventing supply disruptions (Trautrims et al., 2020).

These problems are reflected in various United Nations Sustainable Development Goals such as Goal 8 promoting Decent Work and Economic Growth, and in the principle of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development to leave no one behind (United Nations, 2015). The literature (see Szablewska and Kubacki, 2023) identifies various solutions to modern slavery, such as fostering collaboration and cooperation among stakeholders, instituting transformative changes in business culture, implementing effective legislation, imposing punitive measures or sanctions for noncompliance, adopting self-regulatory and normative tools, encouraging employee-driven initiatives, promoting awareness campaigns against modern slavery, and leveraging technology in the fight against this grave issue. The enduring presence of modern slavery underscores a deeply entrenched societal issue, revealing the complex challenges society faces in addressing this problem. Contemporary supply chains are frequently highly fragmented, and in the context of cost pressures and supply disruptions, social issues often take a back seat.

Legislation implemented to tackle the problem of forced and slave labor (Bodrožić and Gold, 2024), including the U.S.–California Transparency Act (2010), the U.K. Modern Slavery Act (2015), the Australian Modern Slavery Act (2018), and the German Act on Corporate Due Diligence Obligations in Supply Chains (2023). The European Union has recently buttressed corporate sustainability due diligence obligations, strengthening human rights and justice for victims. Yet to be effective, this collective body of legislation faces the challenge of detecting modern slavery and other severely exploitative practices buried in opaque parts of supply chains, combined with remediation and prevention (Gold et al., 2015). In addition, LeBaron (2021) emphasizes that “forced labour is a porous category in the context of business and supply chains, meaning that it is challenging to isolate because workers can move in and out of forced labour and more minor forms of exploitation in relatively short periods of time” (p. 31).

Firms and their supply chains must be proactive with sustainable work practices and social equity. In recognition of the urgent need to advance research in this critical area, our call for papers (Fayezi et al., 2021) invited researchers to explore the dilemma of modern slavery through a specific innovative lens, namely sociotechnical systems (STS) theory. The foundational premise of this theory is the need to move away from a technocratic view of an organization, where a “technical determinist” orientation is embedded in researching technologies (Kling, 1980, p. 62). STS theory argues that individuals should not be considered as “resources to be developed” or extensions to machines (Abbas and Michael, 2023; Kling, 1980; Trist, 1981, p. 42), but as fundamentally defining social aspects in the (re)design and interventions affecting a system (Abbas and Michael, 2023). Therefore, the intersection and reciprocity of both human and technological aspects of any work system comprises its STS. From this theoretical foundation, detecting and remediating modern slavery in supply chains conceptually refers to distinct, but interrelated social and technical subsystems. For example, a work system is a primary unit or department within an organization that can be (re)designed involving interacting social and technical subsystems (Bostrom and Heinen, 1977a , 1977b; Taylor, 1975; Trist, 1981). Therefore, social and technical systems and their external context contribute to the emergence, perpetuation, and diffusion of modern slavery within supply chains.

We received strong submissions and accepted four papers that both make important contributions to our understanding of modern slavery and are consistent with POM's high-quality standards. In the following, we illustrate how these papers individually and collectively contribute to the theory and practice of tackling labor exploitation and slavery in supply chains. Before doing so, however, we elaborate on how an STS conceptualization of modern slavery captures work systems as complex recursive interactions between social and technical system processes, nested within the global industry context. These interactions influence practices linked to and opportunities to reduce the risks of modern slavery. In sum, this special issue advances research on modern slavery in supply chains by, first, elaborating the intricate interplay between multiple subsystems that shape or constrain modern slavery deeply rooted in social dynamics, power structures, and human behavior. Second, by examining how technology and social systems coevolve and interact, managerial practice can consider the degree to which, for example, automation and data analytics can reduce the risk of modern slavery. Third, the inclusion of both individual and organizational agency is critical to the development of effective interventions and strategies to combat exploitation. Finally, building upon the valuable contributions of the research featured in this special issue, we identify key areas for future research.

2. STS and Labor Practices

The core premise of STS theory—for background, see Clegg (2000) and Pasmore (1988)—which speaks to the challenges and potential approaches for mitigating modern slavery, arises from diagnostic (as-is) and prognostic (to-be) exploration of the interactions between people, technology, and various elements of the surrounding systems, as well as with the wider global industry context (Carayon, 2006). Social, technical, and work-related factors and processes are key constructs that allow mapping of intricate systems and subsystems that underlie modern slavery risks in supply chains that provide goods and services (including labor; Gattorna and Pasmore, 2022). The interplay and interactions among these subsystems, embedded within the global context for specific industries, offers valuable insights about key contributing factors (see Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Overview of STS theory.

A social system comprises the relationships, values, structure, work-related elements, and associations that are embedded in an organization and materialize by its members. Organizations make choices about recruitment, task design and compensation arrangements, all of which ultimately shape the social system in terms of culture, emotions, motivation, network, politics, and behaviors (Gattorna and Pasmore, 2022; Kull et al., 2013). More broadly, social systems also extend across supply chains as firms interact through formal and informal networks, potentially influencing behaviors that passively promote or proactively reduce modern slavery.

A technical system consists of techniques, equipment, software tools, and skills that are required by workers to fulfill organizational objectives and tasks (Pasmore, 1988), including the physical and material flows within a transformation process (Abbas and Michael, 2023). Organizations make both strategic and tactical choices about the adoption and application of specific technologies. Problems can arise from the selection of technological configurations that hinder the correction of unforeseen deviations from operational targets while also disengaging workers (Perrow, 2011; Trist and Bamforth, 1951). This is relevant for firms when adopting technology for detecting and remediating modern slavery risks (Jiang et al., 2023).

Work systems are determined by a combination of both social and technical systems (Gattorna and Pasmore, 2022), as noted in Figure 1, and comprise individuals, tasks, tools and technologies, and the physical environment that interact with each other (Carayon, 2009). These systems bring together culture, design of work, and technology in an effort to jointly optimize productivity, quality, and other organizational goals. Furthermore, both human and technical aspects need to be weighted in jointly optimizing the sociotechnical (re)design process (Emery, 1980 , 2016) to achieve an optimal alignment between the needs of social and technical systems. Importantly, a balanced consideration lays the groundwork for sensitivity to external pressures (Pasmore et al., 1982) when considering modern slavery risks. Interactions among systems (Moray, 2000; Rasmussen, 2000) also occur at the supply chain level where work systems are an amalgamation of multiple STS (Kull et al., 2013).

3. Application to Modern Slavery Risks

Viewing modern slavery risks through an STS lens encourages an explicit characterization of the reciprocal interactions among work systems, social and technical systems, and the global industry context that influence modern slavery risks across the supply chain (Kull et al., 2013). Most importantly, critical points of leverage for action, redesign, or regulation become evident for supply chains of goods and services as well as labor supply chains (Figure 2). For example, starting points can be the (re)design of modern slavery detection (e.g., recruitment, diversity/inclusion culture, whistleblowing, auditing, disclosure) and remediation practices (e.g., training, grievance, collaborative and community-based approaches; Stevenson and Cole, 2018). Traditionally, operations management has emphasized internal operations, and the structural and relational aspects of focal firm's multiple tiers of suppliers (Carter et al., 2015) that enable the flow of materials and information between organizations. Yet, recent attention has expanded to the operational roles and influence that other actors play, including NGOs and social enterprises, public and private agencies, financial institutions, and carriers (Carter et al., 2015). Aligned with this attention, the risk of modern slavery often extends beyond the “visibility boundary” of focal firms to include actors who may be hiding labor exploitation (Caruana et al., 2021; Dreier and Luce, 2023). As an important addition, modern slavery reinforces consideration of the labor supply chain that operates in the background (New, 2015), pointing to deceptive recruitment from vulnerable labor pools and techniques for ensuring their continued exploitation through coercive control (Fletcher and Trautrims, 2024).

Figure 2.

Modern slavery risk as an outcome of interactions among multiple systems.

We now explicitly unpack how each of the previously defined sociotechnical dimensions link specifically with risks of modern slavery. Our intent is not to be exhaustive, but rather illustrative, drawing from recent research, including papers in this special issue.

Social systems both within and across organizations may contribute to the risk of exploitation, for example, due to power imbalances between workers and managers or recruiters, or other networks within the workplace that informally challenge formal structures, controls, and knowledge (Kull et al., 2013; Schleper et al., 2017). Risks also arise from cultural attitudes embedded in management teams of suppliers that explicitly or implicitly support exploitation, such as caste inequalities (Mendonca et al., 2024; Soundararajan et al., 2023). Migrant workers or workers in lower-status positions might have less bargaining power, be paid lower wages, and have fewer opportunities to report or seek protection from abuse or exploitation (Kougkoulos et al., 2021). If the focal firm or its supply network inadequately considers the welfare of workers, its social system adversely affects work systems and might subject workers to poor working conditions or low wages. For example, recruitment of transient workers to improve labor flexibility and better match capacity with seasonal demand might “overlook” compliance with strict antislavery measures. Moreover, social values that normalize or tolerate exploitation or slavery-like practices, such as a culture of silence or fear among workers, can prevent workers from speaking out against abuse (e.g., Stevenson, 2022). Lack of visibility further complicates governance of labor issues across the extended supply chain (Reinecke and Donaghey, 2021). This culture and lack of visibility, combined with concerns of potential retaliation, clearly contributed to the recent case of modern slavery in Leicester's (U.K.) garment industry (Gardner et al., 2022).

If a firm's social system supports workers to develop a sense of purpose and work collaboratively, there is a greater likelihood of preventing exploitation. Sentiments and social endowments can impact decision-making and create a workplace culture where, if positive social experiences are prioritized, less tolerance of exploitation results (Soundararajan et al., 2021). Social systems can be an integral part of broader supply chain labor governance frameworks, such as shared responsibility (Soundararajan, 2023), to mitigate modern slavery risks. This is because the supply chains within which an organization operates shape its social system, driven by the dynamics of interorganizational sociotechnical integration (Kull et al., 2013).

Technical systems that link together the structure of organizational operations (Emery, 2016; Gattorna and Pasmore, 2022) can effectuate or mitigate precarious or slavery-like working condition through their interaction with social and work systems. For example, implementing a higher degree of automation for increased efficiency could potentially decrease the labor intensity of (often low-skilled) tasks and thus reduce potential profits from slave labor (Gold et al., 2015). However, it may also lead to the displacement of low-skilled labor, increased inequality due to a widening skill gaps, and excessive workloads resulting from cost-cutting pressures, all of which amplify the vulnerability of unskilled workers to exploitative practices.

Opaque and fragmented technical activities with limited coordination affect work system designs, creating an environment where exploitative practices can thrive unnoticed. For example, lack of proximity between different stages of production, subcontractors, or multiple tiers of suppliers can make it difficult to carry out effective social auditing of working conditions in supply chains (Reinecke and Donaghey, 2021). The intensity and variation of workload resulting from changing demands or disruptions that ripple across supply chain tiers place greater pressure on labor pools, potentially perpetuating precarious work conditions, limiting worker agency, and reducing transparency, thereby increasing the vulnerability to modern slavery risks. At the risk of oversimplification, one could argue that minimizing labor involvement—particularly where the supply chain is opaque and offers limited visibility—can be a useful approach to abate modern slavery risk exposure. Yet, this does not have to be the only approach. Technical governance, such as systems for monitoring and tracking (McGrath et al., 2021) or self-reporting through mobile apps (Marques et al., 2024), can contribute to reducing isolation and vulnerability (Crane, 2013; Kougkoulos et al., 2021), and to ensuring fair distribution of workload and opportunities for skill development.

Work systems entail psychosocial, cognitive, and physical aspects that, according to Carayon (2009), develop certain psychosocial (e.g., control over work pace), cognitive (e.g., information overload), and physical (repetitiveness) loads on workers across the supply chain. The combined configuration of social and work systems underpins the risk of modern slavery being present, as illustrated in Figure 2, with technological systems potentially serving as enablers (e.g., expand recruitment) or inhibitors (e.g., increased transparency and accountability) of modern slavery.

The complexity of work systems is reflected by the extent to which different elements and constructs of STS interact and affect each other; complexity tends to increase as the reach, decentralization, automation, and disturbances increase, as outlined by Vicente (1999). Some of the dimensions of work system complexity include task interdependence, diversity, and uncertainty, among others (Carayon, 2006). As work system complexity continues to rise, managers engaged in the design, implementation, and maintenance of systems within and among firms are confronted with difficult challenges related to upholding worker welfare such as paying an LW (Shen et al., 2024), ensuring protection of human rights, and enforcing stringent antislavery measures (Soundararajan et al., 2021). The need to work across organizational, geographical, cultural, and temporal boundaries due to multiple tiers of suppliers constrain development of governance systems that can mitigate modern slavery risks (Gold et al., 2015; Reinecke and Donaghey, 2021). Supply chains tainted with modern slavery often show complex interactions between legal and illicit organizations, which requires disruptive interventions to address the entire network composed of a multitude of systems (Bhimani et al., 2024).

The global industry context highlights the profound impact of external factors such as regulatory institutions and their enforcement, disruptions as well as connectivity of multiple systems, particularly work systems (Kull et al., 2013; Pasmore, 1988), on exposure to modern slavery risks. Economic uncertainties tend to foster misalignments, for example, between fulfilling changing customer needs or demands, recruiting a temporary workforce, and ensuring fair working conditions (Gattorna and Pasmore, 2022), as was seen during the efforts to rapidly construct stadiums and infrastructure for the Qatar World Cup. Focal firms with access to resources and the ability to shape their industry context and competitive dynamics are in a better position to design systems that might mitigate the extent to which labor exploitation occurs.

Returning to Figure 2, connections between external entities (NGOs, social enterprises, public and private agencies, and consumers) and the social, technical, and work systems embedded in supply chains influence the awareness and response to such challenges. Wilhelm et al. (2024) point to the role of NGOs as “social intermediaries” between supply chains and workers, facilitating transparency and collaborative response mechanisms. Public policies, regulations and political differences also influence how modern slavery is perceived, assessed, and tackled (Bodrožić and Gold, 2024). Finally, consumer engagement can play a critical role in supporting the legitimacy and influence of external entities, such as NGOs, as well as cultures that may allow moral (ir)responsibility to frame the discussion of labor exploitation and consumption of slave work (Carrington et al., 2021). These elements influence our understanding of modern slavery risks and the formulation of effective strategies to deal with it across work systems. For example, different actors in an industry context may describe the risks of modern slavery in very different ways, leading to much debate about the extent of modern slavery, its priority within the sociopolitical agenda, and what strategies and actions would be most effective. These actors engage in “framing battles,” which reflect the competing narratives and discourses surrounding the issue (Gutierrez-Huerter et al., 2023).

4. Overview of the Papers in This Special Issue

In “The ties that link us: Uncovering the socio-technic connections of a labor trafficking network,” Bhimani et al. (2024) adopt a multidisciplinary approach, drawing from STS theory (see Figure 2), operations management, criminology, and network design (Table 1). Their study investigates labor trafficking through a cross-case analysis of 12 networks in the U.S. agricultural sector. By focusing on network structure, composition, and characteristics, the authors shed light on labor trafficking as an often underestimated aspect of human trafficking. The paper highlights the interplay between legal and illicit organizations, emphasizing the need to understand human trafficking within the context of both legal and criminal practices. Bhimani et al. (2024) formulate seven research propositions, offering valuable directions for future studies. These propositions explore parameters of network structure, emphasizing aspects such as network density, transitivity, coaffiliation, and core–periphery structure. By analyzing network characteristics, the study provides a foundation for designing disruptive intervention strategies that target highly connected actors, bridging corporate, civil society, and public policy efforts to combat labor trafficking.

Table 1
Overview of the accepted papers.

Paper Summary

Bhimani et al. (2024) —
Seeks to understand the operations of labor trafficking through the lens of STS theory, drawing on operations management theory, criminology, and network design
—
The analysis of the structure, composition, and characteristics of labor trafficking networks extends STS theory beyond corporate supply chains toward illicit and criminal practices
—
Suggests the predominance of technical practices in agricultural labor trafficking networks and of technical ties (rather than social or illicit ties) connecting corporate actors

Recommendation: Further analysis of network structure and characteristics may help to design disruptive (corporate, civil society, and public policy) intervention strategies that target highly connected actors and take into account the interconnectedness of legal and illegal operations.

Marques et al. (2024) —
Illustrates the overlapping demands between supply chain and technical, social, and work systems
—
Investigates how to develop a sociotechnical solution through enabling workers to use technology in the form of a mobile app to improve supply chain transparency

Recommendation: Any sociotechnical solution must establish a shared foundation that reconciles the interests of various stakeholders and conflicting demands such as those by labor, capital, and consumers.

Shen et al. (2024) —
Takes a supply chain management perspective of living wage (LW) as a work system, considering both business and societal contexts
—
Worker welfare declines when the LW standard exceeds a certain level, as the reduction in demand caused by the LW payments results in fewer workers being eligible to receive wages. This dynamic ultimately decreases overall welfare, along the lines of the piece-rate pay. Coordinated supply chains are less likely to pay the LW to their manufacturing workers, indicating that the classic coordination paradigm fails to address the challenges faced by underpaid workers

Recommendation: The LW movement should be voluntary, in a collaborative, sustainable, and society-wide manner. Thus, when promoting the LW, it is important to identify the role of manufacturers, retailers, consumers, and workers in the process of LW payment.

Wilhelm et al. (2024) —
Considers how NGOs can help support and protect vulnerable workers by serving as a “social intermediary” between supply chain firms and workers
—
Bridges social and technical systems, indicating that different sources and types of nonmediated power play important roles in Thailand's seafood supply chain, where exercising coercive power is difficult

Recommendation: Social intermediaries help firms to see beyond the visible boundary through collaborative interventions, and their initiatives can reduce risks both in factory settings (e.g., seafood processing) and where workers are not tied to a particular location (e.g., vessel workers).

Paper	Summary
Bhimani et al. (2024)	— Seeks to understand the operations of labor trafficking through the lens of STS theory, drawing on operations management theory, criminology, and network design — The analysis of the structure, composition, and characteristics of labor trafficking networks extends STS theory beyond corporate supply chains toward illicit and criminal practices — Suggests the predominance of technical practices in agricultural labor trafficking networks and of technical ties (rather than social or illicit ties) connecting corporate actors
	Recommendation: Further analysis of network structure and characteristics may help to design disruptive (corporate, civil society, and public policy) intervention strategies that target highly connected actors and take into account the interconnectedness of legal and illegal operations.
Marques et al. (2024)	— Illustrates the overlapping demands between supply chain and technical, social, and work systems — Investigates how to develop a sociotechnical solution through enabling workers to use technology in the form of a mobile app to improve supply chain transparency
	Recommendation: Any sociotechnical solution must establish a shared foundation that reconciles the interests of various stakeholders and conflicting demands such as those by labor, capital, and consumers.
Shen et al. (2024)	— Takes a supply chain management perspective of living wage (LW) as a work system, considering both business and societal contexts — Worker welfare declines when the LW standard exceeds a certain level, as the reduction in demand caused by the LW payments results in fewer workers being eligible to receive wages. This dynamic ultimately decreases overall welfare, along the lines of the piece-rate pay. Coordinated supply chains are less likely to pay the LW to their manufacturing workers, indicating that the classic coordination paradigm fails to address the challenges faced by underpaid workers
	Recommendation: The LW movement should be voluntary, in a collaborative, sustainable, and society-wide manner. Thus, when promoting the LW, it is important to identify the role of manufacturers, retailers, consumers, and workers in the process of LW payment.
Wilhelm et al. (2024)	— Considers how NGOs can help support and protect vulnerable workers by serving as a “social intermediary” between supply chain firms and workers — Bridges social and technical systems, indicating that different sources and types of nonmediated power play important roles in Thailand's seafood supply chain, where exercising coercive power is difficult
	Recommendation: Social intermediaries help firms to see beyond the visible boundary through collaborative interventions, and their initiatives can reduce risks both in factory settings (e.g., seafood processing) and where workers are not tied to a particular location (e.g., vessel workers).

Note. STS = sociotechnical systems.

In their paper, titled “More than meets the eye: Misconduct and decoupling against blockchain for supply chain transparency,” Marques et al. (2024) employ intervention-based research within the fashion industry. They focus on developing a blockchain-based solution aimed at creating a comprehensive record of working conditions in Brazil. In collaboration with two nongovernment organizations, two fashion brands and their suppliers, a fashion retail association, and a blockchain startup, the authors illustrate the intricate interconnections between supply chain and technical, social, and work systems (see Figure 2). Through their study, Marques et al. (2024) demonstrate the development of a sociotechnical solution that involves enhancing supply chain transparency and empowering workers through a mobile app. While blockchain technology offers some promise, the authors also explore limitations. They emphasize the necessity of establishing a shared foundation for identifying and implementing solutions. This foundation must reconcile the conflicting interests of multiple stakeholders, including workers, investors and consumers, to foster progress toward a transparent and equitable society.

Shen et al. (2024) assess the LW campaign from a supply chain management perspective in their paper, entitled “Paying LWs in supply chains: The effects of uncertainties, coordination, and competition.” This article considers both business and societal contexts of LW as a work system, and offers an alternative to the conventional labor-capital tradeoff. By constructing game-theoretical models, the authors demonstrate that a sufficiently low LW standard can lead to Pareto improvement, incentivizing all stakeholders, including supply chain members, consumers, and workers, to engage in the LW movement. However, the authors reveal a delicate balance: exceeding a certain LW standard can adversely affect worker welfare, due to a reduced demand and eligibility for wages under piece-rate pay systems. Additionally, the paper highlights the impact of supply and demand uncertainties, and competition, on voluntary LW engagement. Notably, the research underscores the complexity of LW implementation, necessitating voluntary, collaborative, and sustainable efforts from manufacturers, retailers, consumers, and workers.

Finally, in their paper, entitled “Beyond compliance-based governance: The role of social intermediaries in mitigating forced labor in global supply chains,” Wilhelm et al. (2024) address the limitations of compliance-based auditing for modern slavery, especially in complex settings in emerging economies. NGOs can play the role of “social intermediaries,” facilitating communication among vulnerable workers and firms in multiple supply chains (see Figure 2). Drawing on data from the seafood supply chain in Thailand, the research highlights the diverse forms of nonmediated power and their roles when coercive power is less effective. Social intermediaries help firms to broaden their perspective and intervene collaboratively, for example, spanning factory settings across seafood processing and fishing locations where workers are not tied to a specific place.

Collectively, the four papers (see Table 1) provide important contributions and critical insights emerge into novel approaches that offer ways to reduce the risk of forced labor in global supply chains, paving the way for future research that prioritizes the welfare of vulnerable workers.

5. Where to Next?

The insights from the papers in our special issue and our proposed conceptual framework underscore the crucial need for transboundary research that comprehensively captures the intricate interplay of STS and the interdependent relationships between work and supply chains. Our collective exploration of modern slavery risks points to the need, and ideally, encourages expanded future research in this area. In particular, as a meta-theory STS can inform and structure research questions, study designs, and both analytic and empirical field work.

Recent advancements and innovations in sociotechnical design present a promising avenue for addressing the challenges posed by modern slavery risks. In essence, supply chain managers, civil society, and consumers must “value” the reduction of risk of modern slavery thus seeing worker well-being as a source of value creation (Corbett, 2024). Moreover, well-designed regulations that set standards and transformative public policies that build infrastructure and orchestrate action (Bodrožić and Gold, 2024) must be coupled with novel technical tools to enhance transparency, strengthen workers’ rights and welfare, and enforce compliance where necessary. Innovative technologies such as mobile applications, blockchain, and remote sensing data are emerging as powerful tools to address growing consumer concerns, mounting litigation, and expanding reputational damage. Their implementation, supported collaboratively by supply chain partners, can effectively respond to rising stakeholder concerns. When deployed judiciously and with shared objectives (Thinyane and Sassetti, 2020), these technologies can significantly aid in detecting and reducing incidents of modern slavery in corporate activities (McGrath et al., 2021).

For instance, mobile applications have demonstrated potential to educate workers about their rights and facilitate whistleblowing, thereby countering deception and coaching during factory audits (Benstead et al., 2021). Similarly, the decentralized nature of blockchain technology may empower supply chains to reduce unnecessary intermediaries, counter deceptive recruitment, enhance monitoring, and enable the verification of fair payment and working conditions (Boersma and Nolan, 2020; Christ and Helliar, 2021). However, it is essential to acknowledge the nuances and complexities associated with blockchain implementation, as its effectiveness varies across industries and contexts (Marques et al., 2024). Such tools can facilitate change, but their impact is most profound when leveraged by strongly determined stakeholders who are driving transformative initiatives.

Additionally, the integration of geospatial technology and remote sensing data has proven invaluable in mitigating visibility boundary issues in supply chains (Kougkoulos et al., 2021). By collating diverse datasets from multiple sources, these technologies help prevent human-error and negligence-related discrepancies in tracking slavery activities (Boyd et al., 2018; Jackson et al., 2020; Milivojevic et al., 2020). These emerging technologies also serve as catalysts, aligning various STS elements and design innovations to establish transparent governance mechanisms that effectively combat modern slavery along the supply chain. However, as with many technologies, misuse is possible, as evidenced by the potential exploitation of artificial intelligence-based systems against vulnerable groups (Thinyane and Sassetti, 2020). Hence, ethical considerations and responsible deployment of technology are paramount (e.g., Shneiderman, 2020).

The concept of reciprocity is a central and fundamental aspect of the STS framework. For this reciprocity to occur, collaboration among stakeholders along the supply chain is a critical starting point. Moreover, some degree of shared governance can help to balance both human and technical aspects, both within and between organizations, in (re)designing effective work systems that reduce modern slavery risks in supply chains. Thus, interventions can be directed to first build collaboration, followed by fostering reciprocity and establishing shared social and technical governance. This approach allows all stakeholder groups to streamline their efforts in identifying, remediating, and mitigating modern slavery risks across multiple tiers of suppliers and focal firms. This is illustrated by the case of the Fair Food Program in the tomato industry in Immokalee, Florida (USA), a unique partnership among farmers, farmworkers, and retail food companies that ensures humane wages and working conditions. It represents a voluntary, incentive-driven best practice approach to tackling modern slavery (Kunz et al., 2023). This collective endeavor is unlikely to occur easily, but it is essential to address the global call to eliminate modern slavery and other forms of extreme worker exploitation. Although the way forward is undeniably complex and paved with conflicts and paradoxes (Matthews et al., 2024), production and operations management researchers can make important contributions that advance theory and improve practice (Van Wassenhove, 2019). With continued dedication and concerted efforts, the collaborative synergy of academia, industry, and policymakers can help society progress toward more just and equitable working conditions for all.

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

We thank the authors who have crafted theoretically and methodologically rigorous papers with substantial practical implications. We also are sincerely grateful for the dedicated senior editors and reviewers whose insightful feedback and expertise were instrumental in shaping the papers in this special issue. Their invaluable contributions significantly improved the quality and depth of insights developed in the articles. Furthermore, we express our heartfelt thanks for the unwavering support provided by the POM editorial office.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Sajad Fayezi

Robert Klassen

Stefan Gold

How to cite this article

Fayezi S, Klassen R, Gold S, Benstead AV and Wassenhove LV (2024) Reducing Modern Slavery Risks in Supply Chains: Contributions From a Sociotechnical Systems Perspective. Production and Operations Management 34(5): 1028–1037.

References

Abbas

Michael

(2023) Socio-technical theory: A review. In: Papagiannidis

(ed). TheoryHub Book. https://open.ncl.ac.uk/ ISBN:9781739604400.

Benstead

Hendry

Stevenson

(2021) Detecting and remediating modern slavery in supply chains: A targeted audit approach. Production Planning and Control 32(13): 1136–1157.

Bhimani

de Vries

Sneesby

, et al. (2024) The ties that link us: uncovering the socio-technic connections of labor trafficking networks. Production and Operations Management. https://doi.org/10.1177/10591478231224917.

Bodrožić

Gold

(2024) Building diverse, equitable, and inclusive operations and supply chains: Bringing public policy back in. Production and Operations Management. https://doi: 10.1177/10591478241229077.

Boersma

Nolan

(2020) Can blockchain help resolve modern slavery in supply chains? AIB Insights 20(2). https://doi.org/10.46697/001c.13542.

Bostrom

Heinen

(1977a) MIS problems and failures: A socio-technical perspective. Part I: The causes. MIS Quarterly 1(3): 17–32.

Bostrom

Heinen

(1977b) MIS problems and failures: A socio-technical perspective. Part II: The application of socio-technical theory. MIS Quarterly 1(4): 11–28.

Boyd

Jackson

Wardlaw

, et al. (2018) Slavery from space: Demonstrating the role for satellite remote sensing to inform evidence-based action related to UN SDG number 8. ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing 142: 380–388.

Carayon

(2006) Human factors of complex sociotechnical systems. Applied Ergonomics 37(4): 525–535.

10.

Carayon

(2009) The balance theory and the work system model … twenty years later. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction 25(5): 313–327.

11.

Carrington

Chatzidakis

Shaw

(2021) Consuming worker exploitation? Accounts and justifications for consumer (in)action to modern slavery. Work, Employment and Society 35(3): 432–450.

12.

Carter

Rogers

Choi

(2015) Toward the theory of the supply chain. Journal of Supply Chain Management 51(2): 89–97.

13.

Caruana

Crane

Gold

, et al. (2021) Modern slavery in business: The sad and sorry state of a non-field. Business and Society 60(2): 251–287.

14.

Christ

Helliar

(2021) Blockchain technology and modern slavery: Reducing deceptive recruitment in migrant worker populations. Journal of Business Research 131: 112–120.

15.

Clegg

(2000) Sociotechnical principles for system design. Applied Ergonomics 31(5): 463–477.

16.

Corbett

(2024) OM Forum—the operations of well-being: An operational take on happiness, equity, and sustainability. Manufacturing & Service Operations Management 26(2): 409–430.

17.

Crane

(2013) Modern slavery as a management practice: Exploring the conditions and capabilities for human exploitation. Academy of Management Review 38(1): 49–69.

18.

Davidson

JOC

(2015) Modern slavery: The margins of freedom. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

19.

Dreier

Luce

(2023) Alone and exploited, migrant children work brutal jobs across the U.S. New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/series/alone-and-exploited .

20.

Emery

(1980) Designing socio-technical systems for ‘greenfield’ sites. Journal of Occupational Behaviour 1(1): 19–27.

21.

Emery

(2016) Characteristics of socio-technical systems. In: Trist

Murray

Trist

(eds) The social engagement of social science, a Tavistock anthology, Volume 2: A Tavistock anthology-the socio-technical perspective. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press, 157–186.

22.

Fayezi

Benstead

Gold

, et al. (2021) Special issue of production and operations management “modern slavery in supply chains: A socio-technical perspective”. Production and Operations Management 30(11): 4328–4329.

23.

Flake

Freitag

Gordon

(2019) A living wage: A crucial tool in the fight against modern slavery. WA, Australia: Walk Free. https://www.walkfree.org/news/2019/a-living-wage-a-crucial-tool-in-the-fight-against-modern-slavery/.

24.

Fletcher

Trautrims

(2024) Recruitment deception and the organization of labor for exploitation: A policy–theory synthesis. Academy of Management Perspectives 38(1): 43–76.

25.

Gardner

Blair

Pajon

, et al. (2022) Fashioning a beautiful future? Supporting workers and addressing labour exploitation in Leicester’s textile and garment industry, University of Nottingham Rights Lab. https://www.nottingham.ac.uk/Research/Beacons-of-Excellence/Rights-Lab/resources/reports-and-briefings/2022/June/Fashioning-a-beautiful-future.pdf

26.

Gattorna

Pasmore

(2022) Supply chains as dynamic socio-technical systems. In: Tate

Ellram

Bals

(eds) Handbook of theories for purchasing, supply chain and management research. London: Edward Elgar Publishing, 491–501.

27.

Gold

Trautrims

Trodd

(2015) Modern slavery challenges to supply chain management. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 20(5): 485–494.

28.

Gutierrez-Huerter

Gold

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 182(1): 35–58.

29.

International Labour Organization (2023) What are forced labour, modern slavery and human trafficking? Retrieved October 30, 2023, from https://www.ilo.org/global/topics/forced-labour/definition/lang–en/index.htm.

30.

Jackson

Boyd

Ives

, et al. (2020) Remote sensing of fish-processing in the Sundarbans reserve forest, Bangladesh: An insight into the modern slavery-environment nexus in the coastal fringe. Maritime Studies 19(4): 429–444.

31.

Jiang

Chen

Blome

, et al. (2023) Digital technology adoption for modern slavery risk mitigation in supply chains: An institutional perspective. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 192: Article 122595.

32.

Kling

(1980) Social analyses of computing: Theoretical perspectives in recent empirical research. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR) 12(1): 61–110.

33.

Kougkoulos

Cakir

Kunz

, et al. (2021) A multi-method approach to prioritize locations of labor exploitation for ground-based interventions. Production and Operations Management 30(12): 4396–4411.

34.

Kull

Ellis

Narasimhan

(2013) Reducing behavioral constraints to supplier integration: A socio-technical systems perspective. Journal of Supply Chain Management 49(1): 64–86.

35.

Kunz

Chesney

Trautrims

, et al. (2023) Adoption and transferability of joint interventions to fight modern slavery in food supply chains. International Journal of Production Economics 258: Article 108809.

36.

LeBaron

(2021) The role of supply chains in the global business of forced labour. Journal of Supply Chain Management 57(2): 29–42.

37.

Marques

Morais

Terra

(2024) More than meets the eye: Misconduct and decoupling against blockchain for supply chain transparency. Production and Operations Management. https://doi.org/10.1177/10591478231224928.

38.

Matthews

Gold

Schleper

(2024) Broadening the scope of operations and supply chain management scholarship on diversity, equity, and inclusion: Justice, paradox, and dialectical lenses. Production and Operations Management. https://doi: 10.1177/10591478241243384.

39.

McGrath

McCarthy

Marshall

, et al. (2021) Tools and technologies of transparency in sustainable global supply chains. California Management Review 64(1): 67–89.

40.

Mendonca

D’Cruz

Noronha

(2024) Identity work at the intersection of dirty work, caste, and precarity: How Indian cleaners negotiate stigma. Organization 31(1): 3–26.

41.

Milivojevic

Moore

Segrave

(2020) Freeing the modern slaves, one click at a time: Theorising human trafficking, modern slavery, and technology. Anti-Trafficking Review 14: 16–32.

42.

Moray

(2000) Culture, politics and ergonomics. Ergonomics 43(7): 858–868.

43.

New

(2015) Modern slavery and the supply chain: The limits of corporate social responsibility? Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 20(6): 697–707.

44.

Pasmore

(1988) Designing effective organizations: The sociotechnical systems perspective (Vol. 6). New York, NY: Wiley.

45.

Pasmore

Francis

Haldeman

, et al. (1982) Sociotechnical systems: A north American reflection on empirical studies of the seventies. Human Relations 35(12): 1179–1204.

46.

Perrow

(2011) Normal accidents: Living with high risk technologies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

47.

Rasmussen

(2000) Human factors in a dynamic information society: Where are we heading? Ergonomics 43(7): 869–879.

48.

Reinecke

Donaghey

(2021) Towards worker-driven supply chain governance: Developing decent work through democratic worker participation. Journal of Supply Chain Management 57(2): 14–28.

49.

Schleper

Blome

Wuttke

(2017) The dark side of buyer power: Supplier exploitation and the role of ethical climates. Journal of Business Ethics 140(1): 97–114.

50.

Shen

Cao

Minner

(2024) Paying living wages in supply chains: The effects of uncertainties, coordination, and competition. Production and Operations Management.

51.

Shneiderman

(2020) Human-centered artificial intelligence: Reliable, safe & trustworthy. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction 36(6): 495–504.

52.

Simpson

Segrave

Quarshie

, et al. (2021) The role of psychological distance in organizational responses to modern slavery risk in supply chains. Journal of Operations Management 67(8): 989–1016.

53.

Soundararajan

(2023) The dark side of the cascading compliance model in global value chains. Journal of Industrial and Business Economics 50: 209–218.

54.

Soundararajan

Sharma

Bapuji

(2023) Caste, social capital and precarity of labour market intermediaries: The case of dalit labour contractors in India. Organization Studies 45(7): 961–985.

55.

Soundararajan

Wilhelm

Crane

(2021) Humanizing research on working conditions in supply chains: Building a path to decent work. Journal of Supply Chain Management 57(2): 3–13.

56.

Stevenson

(2022) Hidden in plain sight: The bystander effect and the mobilisation of modern slavery whistleblowing. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 27(1): 128–139.

57.

Stevenson

Cole

(2018) Modern slavery in supply chains: A secondary data analysis of detection, remediation and disclosure. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 23(2): 81–99.

58.

Sunar

Swaminathan

(2022) Socially relevant and inclusive operations management. Production and Operations Management 31(12): 4379–4392.

59.

Szablewska

Kubacki

(2023) Empirical business research on modern slavery in supply chains: A systematic review. Journal of Business Research 164: Article 113988.

60.

Taylor

(1975) The human side of work: The socio-technical approach to work system design. Personnel Review 4(3): 17–22.

61.

Thinyane

Sassetti

(2020) Towards a human rights-based approach to AI: Case study of apprise. In: Junio

Koopman

(eds) Evolving perspectives on ICTs in global souths. IDIA 2020. Communications in computer and information science, Vol 1236. Cham: Springer, 33–47.

62.

Trautrims

Schleper

Cakir

, et al. (2020) Survival at the expense of the weakest? Managing modern slavery risks in supply chains during COVID-19. Journal of Risk Research 23(7–8): 1067–1072.

63.

Trist

(1981) The evolution of socio-technical systems as a conceptual framework and as an action research program. In: Van de Ven

Joyce

(eds) Perspectives on organization design and behavior. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 19–75.

64.

Trist

Bamforth

(1951) Some social and psychological consequences of the longwall method of coal-getting. Human Relations 4(1): 3–38.

65.

United Nations (2015) Sustainable Development Goals. United Nations - Department of Economic and Social Affairs - Sustainable Development. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/sdgs (Accessed on 28 July 2024).

66.

Vanpoucke

Klassen

(2023) Reducing forced labour in supply chains: What could traditional companies learn from social enterprises? International Journal of Operations & Production Management 44(10): 1786–1813.

67.

Van Wassenhove

(2019) Sustainable innovation: Pushing the boundaries of traditional operations management. Production and Operations Management 28(12): 2930–2945.

68.

Vicente

(1999) Cognitive work analysis: Toward safe, productive, and healthy computer-based work. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

69.

Wilhelm

Bhakoo

Soundararajan

, et al. (2024) Beyond compliance-based governance: The role of social intermediaries in mitigating forced labour in global supply chains. Production and Operations Management. https://doi.org/10.1177/10591478231224922.