‘It’s not going to be tech that gets us out of it’: Modern slavery and digitisation in fashion supply networks

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to examine the role of digital technology, especially Blockchain, in addressing modern slavery and labour exploitation within garment manufacturing supply networks. Drawing on empirical research with UK-based industry professionals, we argue that while digital tools contain benefits in enhancing transparency, they are limited by structural challenges such as extensive subcontracting, cost pressures, and corporate reluctance to adopt technology that could expose labour rights violations. We situate this discussion within the broader context of corporate/organisational criminology, by highlighting how business practices and regulatory gaps contribute to ongoing challenges of modern slavery. A key finding is that Blockchain risks becoming a superficial solution rather than a transformative tool, with its success depending on industry-wide reform and more consistent oversight. We conclude that digital technology can support transparency and due diligence efforts, but without addressing systemic organisational shortcomings, it risks serving as a ‘tech fix’ rather than a meaningful solution.

Keywords

Blockchain corporate crime fast fashion garment manufacturing labour exploitation modern slavery

Introduction

In this article, we critically consider the role of digital technology in addressing modern slavery and labour exploitation in the fashion industry. Informed by empirical research conducted in the United Kingdom with fashion industry and garment manufacturing professionals, the underpinning research question is ‘To what extent can digital technology improve transparency provisions against modern slavery in garment manufacturing supply networks?’. The fashion industry faces significant challenges due to its complex supply networks, which limit transparency and encourage poor working conditions, including modern slavery (Benstead et al., 2018; Camargo et al., 2020; Uddin et al., 2023). Therefore, our core argument is that while the potential benefits of digital tools such as Blockchain¹ are evident, the industry is collectively still struggling to grasp and respond to ‘traditional’ systemic supply network pressures associated with contractual demands, whereby the widespread imposition of tools such as Blockchain would risk masking rather than addressing these challenges. In addition, there seems to be a reluctance in the wider fashion industry to engage with discussions on, or at least adopt, Blockchain. Larger brands may be concerned with reputational implications of uncovering labour exploitation that is uncovered by Blockchain, whereas smaller manufacturers and other businesses may not have the resources or technical expertise to implement such technology as part of their standard practice (Davies et al., 2024). Hence, as the title of our article implies, there are still unresolved questions of how to support industry actors to understand and address systemic challenges in their supply networks. In essence, Blockchain may have a role as part of a wider response but is not a quick-fix substitute or solution for grappling with deeper-rooted business challenges.

These notions of routine business practices, supply chain/network pressures, and challenges associated with regulation and transparency, strongly relate to ongoing discussions in the sphere of white-collar and corporate crime, which can be broadly understood as illegal and harmful acts (or omissions) that are committed by legitimate organisations or their members/employees to benefit these organisations (van Erp and Huisman, 2017). Given the potential profits and dominance of the fashion and garment manufacturing sectors worldwide (British Fashion Council, 2022), the business costs of addressing human rights and due diligence issues mean that there is, theoretically, an incentive to avoid (or at least minimise) investing in strategies to address systemic challenges associated with labour exploitation in supply networks. Therefore, examining critical aspects of corporate crime such as how criminal and other ‘dubious’ business activities are organised and regulated (e.g. Benson and Simpson, 2024; Lord and Levi, 2025; Oberheim et al., 2025), can be interlinked with important technological developments in sectors such as garment manufacturing and the wider fashion industry. Such an integration forms the basis of our discussion here.

This article is structured by first providing a critical overview of extant literature across the overlapping (but not always connected) areas of modern slavery, corporate crime, and the fashion industry. Second, we outline the methods used for the project that informed this article. Third, we examine key elements of our empirical data to discuss the perceptions and applicability of to what extent digital technology is, or could be, used to mitigate and address the risks of modern slavery in garment manufacturing. Our central finding is that while the technological benefits of tools such as Blockchain have potential to improve corporate transparency and accountability, these tools risk obscuring longer-term, systemic, and in some cases, poorly understood challenges within supply networks (e.g. subcontracting, casual work, complex payment structures). Therefore, digital technology by itself cannot be a standalone solution to pre-existing supply network problems, but risks being presented as such to demonstrate ‘progress’ in addressing human rights violations and other business challenges. The article contributes to existing literature on the use of digital technology in addressing modern slavery, as well as the wider context of corporate crime research in relation to understanding organisational processes and regulatory challenges in key sectors – here framed through the case of garment manufacturing.

The contexts of modern slavery and corporate involvement

Since the 1990s, there has been a renewed policy and legislative focus on human trafficking, exploitation, and modern slavery globally and nationally (Broad and Turnbull, 2019). In 2000, the United Nations created the Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons Especially Women and Children supplementing the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organised Crime, which provided the foundation for global anti-trafficking policy and provided the impetus for individual states to act. The motivation to develop national instruments was subsequently bolstered by EU Conventions and Directives requiring member states (which at the time included the United Kingdom) to provide remedy for victims.

In parallel, in the last 15 years, attention globally has increasingly included consideration of labour exploitation, the role of corporations in exploitation, and how governments can regulate their activities (e.g. Davies and Malik, 2024; LeBaron, 2020). The concepts of corporate social responsibility and business and human rights have highlighted the ways in which corporations can be held accountable for avoiding the infringement of human rights. Again, partly driven by global instruments – the United Nations Guiding Principles (UNGPs) on Business and Human Rights in 2011 and the Protocol of 2014 to the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 – corporate accountability for exploitation is now on the national agenda in the United Kingdom. This shift has led to greater scrutiny of business activities, particularly in relation to corporate negligence and complicity in human rights violations within global supply networks. Despite making steps towards considering the role of corporations, the principles underpinning these global instruments are voluntary and consequently the UNGPs have been regarded as ‘soft law’ and have failed to translate into access to justice for victims (Ramasastry, 2015; Sarfaty, 2015).

In the early 2010s, problems were highlighted with the anti-trafficking response in the United Kingdom which had largely made use of existing legislation that included elements of both sexual and labour exploitation. Following a series of reports calling for unified legislation (ATMG, 2013), as well as a greater role for businesses in addressing modern slavery (Centre for Social Justice, 2013), the United Kingdom implemented the Modern Slavery Act in 2015. The Act defined modern slavery as including human trafficking, slavery, forced labour and domestic servitude – the broadening of the activities within the concept reflecting an ‘exploitation creep’ also the case in other jurisdictions (Chuang, 2014). Section 54 of the Act incorporated Transparency in Supply Chains (TISC) provisions which require any corporate body or partnership that conducts its business (or part thereof) in the United Kingdom with an annual turnover of £36 million or more to publish an annual statement outlining whether it has taken steps to address modern slavery in its supply networks/chains during the financial year and if so, what steps have been taken. While these requirements may have helped to improve business awareness of modern slavery risks (Barkay et al., 2024), the lack of criminal liability for non-compliance limits its potential to address corporate wrongdoing.

TISC provisions have provided an opportunity for businesses to better understand and regulate their supply networks. However, there are no penalties for non-compliance and the guidance relies on reputational and moral drivers for corporate change despite consumer shame being limited at driving such change (New, 2015; Phillips, 2015). In terms of criminal liability for corporate failures in this area, the TISC provisions are at a nascent stage of development – there are no criminal consequences for non-compliance arising from Section 54 (Lord and Broad, 2018). Corporations could be held criminally liable for direct use of or involvement in human trafficking or forced labour under the Act, but direct liability is difficult to prove and the scope for this is limited (Institute for Human Rights and Business, 2016).

Despite earlier limitations, there is some evidence that reporting under the Act has improved since the UK Government announced new financial penalties for companies found to be in violation of the Act and complicit in exploitation (Carle and Brewer, 2023). These penalties represent a move towards recognising forms of corporate crime and harm as a serious issue, suggesting that financial consequences may be more useful than reputational damage alone. Nevertheless, the continued lack of criminal prosecutions suggests ongoing difficulties in holding corporations legally accountable for their potential role in modern slavery. Although the TISC provisions have been in place for nearly a decade, the shape of regulatory responses in the United Kingdom and elsewhere are still at emerging stages, which provides opportunities to consider how corporations can understand and investigate their supply networks, and what potential there is for use of digital technology to facilitate this knowledge.

The fashion industry and digital technology

Fashion supply networks are complex, globally dispersed, and involve multiple tiers. Outsourcing in both local and global supply networks is standard practice with subcontracting and is often unauthorised, which limits transparency (Benstead et al., 2021; Garcia-Torres et al., 2024). Factories may subcontract to smaller, less visible suppliers which makes it difficult to monitor work conditions and ensure compliance. This fragmentation, driven by the pursuit of lower costs and speed, has led to poor working conditions (Camargo et al., 2020). Modern slavery is a significant risk across industries globally, but the fashion industry is especially vulnerable due to its long, fragmented and labour-intensive supply networks that increase susceptibility to exploitation (Uddin et al., 2023). The risks span each tier of supply networks, from cultivating and processing raw materials like cotton to manufacturing finished garments (Nolan, 2022). Addressing these issues requires improved visibility to detect unethical practices, including modern slavery.

Digital technologies offer a potential solution to enhance transparency and accountability in supply networks. Examples include Blockchain technology, digital whistleblowing systems, supplier evaluations, and digital training programmes (Strand et al., 2024). There is increased attention surrounding Blockchain technology for addressing transparency and modern slavery risks (Christ and Helliar, 2021). In theory, by implementing Blockchain, supply networks can improve transparency and accountability across all production stages, achieving end-to-end product traceability, thereby enabling brands and consumers to verify a product’s journey (Shou and Domenech, 2022). Blockchain can improve the visibility of working conditions and can help verify fair wages, as well as other operational benefits such as reducing duplication, streamlining processes and lowering costs (Benstead et al., 2024). However, governance challenges in Blockchain implementation can lead to unexpected transaction costs that require careful management (Marques et al., 2024).

Therefore, despite its potential, Blockchain adoption remains in its infancy and several barriers limit its scalability and widespread implementation (Sauer et al., 2024). These include a digitalisation backlog, lack of industry awareness, and technical challenges due to its immutability (Benstead et al., 2024; Saberi et al., 2019). While Blockchain can drive transparency, it is not a standalone solution, and organisations first need to improve internal practices to provide a strong foundation for implementing Blockchain more usefully. That said, upcoming legislation is contributing to Blockchain adoption. For example, the U.S. has banned imports of products made with forced labour, and Germany has introduced legislation for social and environmental due diligence for larger companies (Bain, 2021). The European Union plans to implement Digital Product Passports (DPPs) by 2030. DPPs are rooted in Blockchain technology and are intended to improve transparency, traceability and sustainability by recording and sharing key product information. Consumers and businesses can access data through QR codes, which can promote waste reduction, product longevity and sustainable practices. DPPs will be mandatory for textiles, and companies such as Tesco have already started to introduce them in their clothing lines (Woolfson, 2024). Others such as H&M and Kering are also utilising Blockchain technology to enhance supply chain visibility and accountability. These initiatives reflect a growing recognition of Blockchain’s potential to address issues such as modern slavery, thereby positioning it as a potential transformative tool in supply chain transparency. It is on this basis that we outline and discuss our research findings in the remaining sections of this article.

Methods

To conduct this research, the authors used a combination of methods, which consisted of 12 semi-structured qualitative interviews with professionals who worked in or were associated with the garment manufacturing industry. In addition, a secondary analysis of 118 modern slavery transparency statements was conducted to assess how far companies appear to embed digital technology into their transparency approaches/policies. There were several considerations when gathering the above data, as outlined in the rest of this section.

Having networked through events and roundtable discussions, the authors used purposive sampling, which can be useful when accessing professionals² (Ma et al., 2021). Using this approach, during 2023 the authors interviewed professionals in technology companies (n = 3), industry actors (n = 7), a regulatory agency (n = 1), and a worker support organisation (n = 1). All participants occupied either senior management or executive positions, making them strategically placed within their organisations to understand ‘ethical’ policies and practices. Such individuals can be difficult to access but are well placed to discuss less publicly visible themes (Petintseva et al., 2020: 21).

As discussed by others (e.g. Wincup, 2017: 100–101), semi-structured interviews provide a flexible approach for researchers to frame questions while allowing participants to discuss issues that are important to them. Key questions to participants were based on their professional views and experiences of digital technologies such as Blockchain, as well as the potential of these technologies to address modern slavery in the garment industry. Interviews were thematically analysed, which is a common approach to help understand important issues within data (Naeem et al., 2023). In this case, codes were developed with the assistance of qualitative analysis software (NVivo). For example, codes relating to ‘awareness’, ‘benefits’, and ‘challenges’ of Blockchain technology were later developed into a broader theme on ‘perceptions of Blockchain’ to examine how businesses understood such tools.

The modern slavery transparency statements were drawn from companies listed in the ‘Fashion Transparency Index’ (FTI) 2022 edition,³ which is a review of 250 of the world’s largest fashion brands based on human rights and other commitments they have made (Fashion Revolution, 2022). The FTI was selected as it is a primary international assessment tool in this sector and provides an existing data source from which to draw a sample. Of these 250 companies, 118 had a modern slavery transparency statement based on the Modern Slavery Act 2015.⁴ Of these 118 statements, 20 included some reference to digital technology – usually in passing terms, but occasionally with further detail. Since the intention of this project was to scope out the potential or actual use of digital technology, the authors zoomed in on this factor among a wider body of data within the FTI and transparency statements.

The interviews and statements complemented each other – from the statements alone, it would be difficult to assess a more in-depth ‘industry view’ of digital technology, which the interviews helped to shed light on. Whereas obtaining a broader (and possibly more objective) sense of how companies evidence the use of digital technology in their ethical policies and practices would be limited from interviews alone but can be represented in the transparency statements. The authors acknowledge that the sample size for this project is relatively small, so do not make generalisations about the entire industry, or its use of technology in relation to addressing modern slavery. However, the value of findings based on smaller-scale research arguably indicate deeper-rooted challenges that could be valuable for developing longer-term ‘grounded’ research and theory (Gadd et al., 2012: 10) – in this case for criminologists and professionals who have an interest in the overlaps between modern slavery, corporate/organisational compliance, the garment industry, and digital technologies. It is to these findings that we now turn.

The efficacy of digital technology in addressing modern slavery in garment manufacturing

As part of our central argument that while Blockchain (and other technologies) can be useful when addressing modern slavery, its potential is limited by pre-existing and structural challenges in supply networks that are difficult to resolve, such as extensive subcontracting, as well as ‘just in time’ purchasing practices (e.g. Choi et al., 2023) that are associated with price pressures on smaller businesses. Hence, the following sections focus on three key discussion points: first, the ways in which industry professionals regard Blockchain and implement it in their organisations. Second, how pre-existing supply network challenges relate to the use of Blockchain and other technology. Third, how the wider regulatory context could shape, and be shaped by Blockchain in relation to modern slavery practices in garment manufacturing.

Business perceptions and use of digital technology

As noted, a minority of businesses from our sample of transparency statements (20 out of 118) explicitly referred to how they used digital technology to assist them in addressing exploitation in their organisations and supply networks. To illustrate, H&M Group’s (2022) statement contains a section on accelerating traceability, referring to pilot projects making use of Blockchain technology to track 44 million pieces in textile supply. The statement includes an ambition for 2023 to expand this implementation – although the 2023 statement contains no reference to Blockchain, which suggests that such tools are not fully utilised and are still being piloted. However, H&M’s 2022 statement is still more explicit than others, who, for example, simply refer in passing to ‘digital solutions’ in confidential reporting procedures (M&S, 2023), or ‘remote impact assessments’ for managers and workers (The North Face, 2025).

It is important not to draw too many definitive conclusions from these statements, since some businesses may have embedded a wide variety of digital technology to the extent that they feel it is not necessary to discuss examples of their efforts (Pinnington et al., 2023). Nevertheless, given the way in which transparency statements have been depicted as something of a ‘tick-box exercise’ for many organisations (Barkay et al., 2024; Hess, 2021: 269), this may influence them, on the one hand, to include as little detail as possible; but on the other, it may be unusual to not ‘showcase’ any technological innovations being adopted. It is possible that some businesses are not fully aware of the potential benefits of tools such as Blockchain, or if they are, lack the resources or motivation/willingness to implement them.

To illustrate this lack of willingness, the participant interviewees held largely negative perceptions of tools like Blockchain. Indeed, apart from the technology companies, in most cases the authors had to proactively raise the issue of digital technology to start such a conversation with participants. Even so, some could see the inherent benefits of Blockchain as represented here:

. . . you are trying to prove that your data are trustworthy . . . the whole point is to create a chain of custody of the product’s supply chain and see that the data presented is not corruptible . . . Blockchain means that in your supply chain you have to be a bit more careful about your claims. (Tech-Company-CEO-01)

Therefore, in principle Blockchain can and has been used to beneficial effect, as existing research suggests (Benstead et al., 2024; Chen, 2024). In other words, if high-quality data (e.g. on contracts, worker salaries) are inputted in the earlier stages, this can deliver tangible results by holding companies accountable if they later try to dispute these documents/agreements or try to circumnavigate them. In this case, Tech-Company-CEO-01 also referred to the risk that some companies engage in ‘tech-washing’, meaning that they make bold claims about how they are using Blockchain, but in practice are not doing so – thereby making connections to ‘greenwashing’ in that some companies exaggerate their commitments to addressing environmental concerns (Chrimes and Heim, 2024: 163).

In contrast to the above, other participants were more sceptical of Blockchain, variously referring to it as a ‘buzzword’ and a ‘gimmick’:

Blockchain has been around for 25 years but now it’s a buzzword. I was doing that at BAE Systems 25 years ago . . . It’s the same technology, it’s just being applied differently . . . You should address the equipment first and that can help you technologically to manage the labour . . . These are actually very simple solutions without the need to crack it with a sledgehammer or Blockchain. (Employer-Association-CEO-01)

What are you authenticating it to? By whom? Who wants it? What are you actually saying? . . . Those questions haven’t really been taken up by UK retail PLCs . . . Look at this, you can go onto this app, and you can do this and suddenly you can have a picture of who made your garment. It’s not used to authenticate anything, it’s used as a gimmick, as a marketing plan. So, I’m quite sceptical of the role of technology until the market changes or is forced to change. (Manufacturer-Manager-01)

There are at least two key points that are worth considering here. First, that Blockchain has been in use for a long time and is not necessarily needed to resolve existing concerns with labour and manufacturing equipment. For instance, Employer-Association-CEO-01 also stated that making greater use of unique login IDs for workers when using equipment/machinery, as well as automated logs for every activity they undertake, would be useful to help verify how many workers are ‘on the floor’ and what tasks/transactions are taking place – which has also been discussed elsewhere (Fashion Capital, 2025).

Second, a reluctance of larger fashion brands to engage with the potential of digital technology and consider key questions about how exactly it could and should be applied (Chen, 2024; Pautasso et al., 2019) – which in turn risks a more superficial engagement and ‘marketing plans’ that help them to appear more ethical. As per existing literature in organisational/corporate crime, while smaller organisations may lack internal expertise or resources, in larger organisations decision-making processes (and therefore accountability) can be complex and multifaceted (Benson and Simpson, 2024: 183–184). In practice, this means that even where there are individuals in large businesses keen to enhance transparency and utilise tools like Blockchain, their enthusiasm may be countered by ‘normal’ processes of organisational decision-making that block such proposals that emerge from lower down in corporate hierarchies (van Erp and Huisman, 2017). Related to this, in the above extract Manufacturer-Manager-01 alludes to the idea that a precondition of digital technology being used effectively is that the ‘market’ first needs to change. Hence, we now turn to these underlying challenges.

Challenges of digitisation in businesses and supply networks

Since the development of the MSA 2015, some businesses have been criticised for writing transparency statements that are superficial and that provide little information while still technically complying with the legislation (Barkay et al., 2024; McGaughey et al., 2022; Mantouvalou, 2018). This issue connects to our statements analysis, which as noted above, typically contained little information on how companies use digital technology within their organisational and supply network practices. However, one participant (Tech-Company-CEO-02) suggested that companies are likely to increasingly use artificial intelligence (AI) tools to help them write more ‘convincing’ transparency statements. This participant added that the benchmark period would likely be statements from 2023, whereby in future years it will start to become more obvious which statements have been written with the assistance of AI. While there is not yet (to the best of our knowledge) any substantial research to support or critique this claim, it highlights a concern that while such AI tools may be useful on a complementary basis (e.g. Kalla et al., 2023), they are not intended as a substitute for ‘human input’.

These concerns with transparency statements relate to wider underlying challenges in supply networks, since they pose the question of how to engage with businesses to encourage (through voluntary measures) or otherwise require them (through legal interventions) to address modern slavery and exploitation. Participants raised some key considerations on these matters:

We are thinking about human psychology, we have a concept called “good greed”, because today we tend to expect businesses to do charity and to demand so much from them and we don’t offer any rewards . . . So how can we shape them that the more transparent and ethical business you are, the more business you should make, simple as that? That’s a very big undertaking but the way we see good greed. (Tech-Company-CEO-01)

. . . Blockchain is a good technology, and it works well, if all parties believe in it. But pushing it out to the fashion supply chain . . . Who’s adopted it? None of the big supply chains or the big five brands have adopted it. Another issue with adopting it is that all of a sudden you’re creating yourself another department with another 20 people to audit it, manage it, push it, roll it out, and so the overheads go up. (Employer-Assocation-CEO-01)

Both participants allude to the cost for organisations to behave ‘ethically’ and embed such practices into their routine business operations. By referring to ‘good greed’, Tech-Company-CEO-01 essentially refers to businesses as rational actors, which may appeal when encouraging them to reduce opportunities for exploitation, thereby demonstrating ethical behaviour and receiving public recognition for this to attract more business. Relating this point to corporate/organisational crime research, since companies have a legal obligation to maximise profits for their shareholders, they do weigh up the potential risks and rewards of pursuing (or not pursuing) courses of action as part of the decision-making process (Gottschalk, 2022). However, rational choice alone is not sufficient to explain organisational crime, since there are numerous factors relating to internal cultures, external regulation, political-economic structures, and common industry practices that affect businesses and individuals working within them (Benson et al., 2016; Bociga and Davies, 2025).

On industry practice, Employer-Assocation-CEO-01 states that within the fashion industry, there is a lack of engagement with digital technology from major brands and their supply networks, which seems partly due to the costs (and choices) involved. Nevertheless, this also hints at a broader lack of willingness for major brands – or at least key decision-makers within them – to take the risk of ‘going first’ and opening themselves up to a higher level of accountability that Blockchain may provide. Therefore, the interplay between the practice of individual businesses and the wider fashion industry that may hold back further transparency is evident from these extracts.

To reinforce the above controversies between potential use of digital technology and what this would mean for business/industry accountability, one participant attempted to summarise the problem inherent in the fashion industry and its supply networks:

There’s a bit of an aspect to it in the industry . . . of an old boys’ club. They all know each other. They all get along. They all share tips and tricks. Unless you’re on the outside and you’re doing something that they don’t want you to do. Then you won’t get copied in on the emails. You won’t get invited to the dinners . . . that’s how the decisions are being made over here. Those are the people, and obviously it’s the same in the US, same in Europe . . . those are the people that need to be convinced . . . How do you get them to take a lower profit for the good of the planet? (Auditor-Manager-01)

This extract points to a relatively small number of individuals who hold strategic positions within their own organisations, and possibly the industry, who have significant input to how decisions are made. Indeed, the notion of ‘groupthink’ is commonly cited in corporate crime research as a contributing factor to poor or aggressive decision-making that can result in criminal activity (Burdon, 2016; van Erp and Huisman, 2017) – even if this was not the intended outcome. Such organisational and industry dynamics related to culture, decision-making and opportunity are well-discussed challenges and are significant, irrespective of how digital technology is factored in. Therefore, the actions (or omissions) of businesses in relation to digital technology, as well as wider supply network processes, bring into question how they are regulated and controlled in the fashion industry.

Trajectories of regulation and control

Professionals involved in regulation and civil society were least likely of all participants to proactively highlight the role of digital technology. As the below extracts highlight, their priorities were more closely linked to ‘traditional’ challenges around regulation/inspections and organising workers:

. . . Officially, it’s still in this present government’s manifesto to create the Single Enforcement Body. But that would require legislation and that’s not been forthcoming . . . But that’s not stopped us trying to work more closely with the organisations that were in that proposed merger. So we’re doing for example, joint webinars with EAS, the Employment Agency Inspectorate and also National Minimum Wage, looking more at joint operational activity. (GLAA-01)

. . . unions can’t be seen to just not be embedded in the community, they have to work hand in hand with us to make sure that they’re accessible to people. That whole idea of, ultimately, workers have to be members to get that support. That can’t happen overnight. You have to make sure that you’re talking about the benefits of being in the union and the commonalities around people and power within the workforce, and you can only empower people to take on that role if you’re present in the community. (Community-Group-01)

For clarity, these interviews took place before the UK general election of 2024, so the participant from the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority (GLAA) refers to a government commitment to create a Single Enforcement Body (SEB) (Institute for Government, 2021: 38), thereby merging different regulatory authorities. This commitment to establish a SEB was also contained in the Labour Party’s 2024 manifesto (Labour Party, 2024) and is an ongoing process via setting up the Fair Work Agency (FWA). In this case, GLAA-01 was primarily concerned with improving labour conditions, which any merger may assist with due to improvements in shared intelligence and pooling of resources – but did not acknowledge the potential of digital technology to address modern slavery. It should be noted that the fashion industry does not fall under the GLAAs licencing remit, but it can still respond to cases that are reported to them from any sector of the economy (Clark et al., 2022). Even so, concerns with matters like the SEB/FWA are long-standing priorities related to labour conditions and licencing, which appeared to be the priority from a regulatory perspective.

The worker support group, which assists workers in several sectors including garment manufacturing, made a similar point that their primary challenge revolves around how to recruit and organise workers to trade unions, which is also a long-standing issue, including for migrant workers (Refslund, 2021). It may be that digital technology can play a role in helping to recruit workers, but a stronger union presence in the local area was seen as important. Therefore, from both a ‘top-down’ and ‘grassroots’ perspective, there may be a general lack of awareness of digital tools, but there seem to be more pressing issues to address before these are even factored in.

Participants from the industry were somewhat critical about the role of digital technology, suggesting that in terms of responses, a shift in consumer attitudes is key, along with a genuine level of human ‘commitment’ to addressing problems:

I think that all of us on one level or another are facing the decision . . . How much are you prepared to sacrifice? Because it’s not the law that you have to buy an expensive garment. While the supply is there, the temptation is to buy it . . . it’s easier off the lips than off the wallet. Well, I like that, I buy it, but you didn’t even stop for a minute to think who made it in Indonesia, under what conditions and do I feel guilty about it? (Employer-Association-CEO-01)

It’s nice to think that by digitising everything, we’ll have a proper paper trail. But I think ultimately, it’s a human first issue. We got ourselves into the mess of burning the planet down and over consuming, and ultimately, it’s not going to be tech that gets us out of it. It’s going to be humans readdressing their approach to consumption and consumerism . . . there are many aspects that tech will help with and will ease the burden of, but there is no silver bullet that’s going to fix everything really quick and we’re all just going to be able to sign up to this system and everyone’s then going to have transparency. It’s a pipe dream. (Auditor-Manager-01)

Several participants highlighted the role of consumers, primarily on providing better education and access to information about how garments are sourced and under what conditions for workers. However, there may be a limit to the influence of consumers in supply networks, since brands continue to hold significant sway (Caspersz et al., 2022) and can advertise products as having been produced ‘ethically’ or ‘sustainably’. Auditor-Manager-01 felt that the contribution of digital technology was limited in relation to how organisations and individuals need to change their behaviour on a range of issues, including purchasing practices, labour conditions and environmental factors. This level of nuance was not explicit in the analysed transparency statements, which implies that some companies producing such statements need more support and oversight in developing their claims of what is happening in their organisations.

These points on digitisation suggest that there are a range of systemic and long-standing supply network pressures and regulatory challenges that are still not fully understood, even before technological solutions are factored in. These points are reflected in ongoing discussions within organisational crime research about how to develop robust regulatory and control mechanisms that make use of criminal and regulatory sanctions (Davies and Malik, 2024), as well as alternative interventions from business/industry groups and ‘civil society’ such as trade unions and community groups (Refslund, 2021). Therefore, tools such as Blockchain may appear as a solution to resolve long-standing supply network problems and improve transparency. However, digital technology cannot be used merely to mask existing problems if there is a lack of willingness or commitment to reform systemic organisational and industry practices that lead to exploitative labour, questionable product quality, and environmental damage.

Concluding thoughts

This article has examined complexities surrounding the use of digital technology, especially Blockchain, in addressing modern slavery within the UK garment manufacturing industry. While Blockchain contains potential benefits in increasing transparency and accountability, its adoption is limited by entrenched structural challenges in supply networks, such as extensive subcontracting and cost pressures driven by ‘just-in-time’ purchasing practices (Choi et al., 2023). Business engagement with aspects of digital technology remains limited, with a small number explicitly referencing its implementation in their transparency statements. Moreover, there is scepticism among industry professionals regarding the efficacy of Blockchain, with some viewing it more as a marketing tool rather than a ‘game changing’ solution to challenges like labour exploitation and modern slavery. This article also underscores the broader challenge of corporate reluctance to embrace transparency due to concerns over cost, accountability, and the difficulty of implementing digital solutions. The regulatory landscape remains focused on traditional enforcement methods, with seemingly limited integration of digital tools in overseeing labour rights. Even when technology is utilised, its usefulness is likely to depend on the quality of data input and the willingness of all supply network actors to behave ‘ethically’, which remains a significant barrier (Benstead et al., 2024; Chen, 2024) and is a long-standing concern in the sphere of corporate crime research.

The future trajectory of digital technology in addressing modern slavery in garment manufacturing depends on both industry-wide reform and more consistent regulatory frameworks. Policymakers should address the limitations of voluntary corporate compliance and consider providing clearer guidelines for digital transparency, including standardised reporting on technology use in supply networks. These developments are starting to emerge in recent mandatory due diligence initiatives (e.g. the EU Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive). In addition, greater investment in education and training could help businesses and regulators better understand the dynamics of technology such as Blockchain. Beyond technological advancements, encouraging a shift in consumer attitudes towards ethical consumption has a key role, as market demand arguably has at least some role in shaping corporate behaviour (Davies and Malik, 2024). Emerging AI tools and Blockchain developments can help to enhance supply network traceability, but their success may depend on efforts such as union-led worker organisation and more robust/consistent enforcement mechanisms. Therefore, future research could examine how digital technology overlaps with organisational cultures and industry norms, thereby examining ways to overcome corporate barriers to transparency. Ultimately, while technology can support efforts to address modern slavery, systemic changes in business practices, regulatory policies and consumer awareness are essential to creating sustainable improvements in the garment manufacturing industry. These findings resonate with the corporate crime research agenda due to their focus on improving corporate oversight through a digital technology angle, which in some respects is an emerging area of research.

Despite having aesthetic and some practical value, participants that have informed this article variously refer to Blockchain as a ‘gimmick’, a ‘buzzword’ and a ‘pipe dream’. We are not suggesting that digital tools like Blockchain should be avoided or are inherently ineffective – especially with regards to the technology itself. On the contrary, in the face of evolving technological developments and attempts to regulate these (e.g. UK Parliament, 2024), it would be naïve to deny the role that technology has and will continue to have in helping to address the risks of labour exploitation and associated challenges. We have argued in favour of a nuanced approach that integrates aspects of criminological, technological and business/supply network approaches to these issues. In practice, this requires understanding and enhancing the management of supply networks in conjunction with technological interventions, which on their own are unlikely to deliver meaningful and sustainable improvements.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the research participants who contributed their time and expertise to inform the key findings and conclusions that form the basis of this article, as well as the article reviewers for their feedback.

ORCID iDs

Jon Davies

Rose Broad

Amy V Benstead

Michelle Corallo

Ethical approval and informed consent statements

The authors confirm that no institutional ethics approval was required for the research that informs this article. All participants gave informed consent (written and verbal) to take part in this research project, which included consent for publication and use of anonymised quotations / paraphrasing.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article: The research that informs this article was funded by The University of Manchester’s Centre for Digital Trust and Society (CDTS), as part of its 2022-23 round of seedcorn funding.

Declaration of conflicting interests

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

Data availability statement

Anonymised transcripts and associated data analysis files are available subject to request and after consideration by the authors / research team.

Notes

Author biographies

Jon Davies is a Senior Lecturer in Criminology at The University of Manchester. His research interests are in the areas of white-collar, corporate, and organisational crimes, especially in relation to labour exploitation. He has conducted research across numerous sectors including agri-food, construction, garment manufacturing, and finance.

Rose Broad is a Professor in Criminology at The University of Manchester. She has been researching human trafficking and modern slavery for nearly two decades, focusing on those held responsible for these activities and the processes and impact of policymaking in this area.

Amy V Benstead is a Senior Lecturer in Fashion Management at the University of Manchester and specialises in ethical and sustainable supply chain management. With a background in international sourcing in the fashion industry, her research addresses social inequalities in global production.

Michelle Corallo is a PhD student in the Department of Criminology at The University of Manchester. Her broader research interests are in the areas of social injustices and crimes of the powerful, but her current research focuses on conflict resolution and atrocity crimes.

References

ATMG (2013) In the dock: Examining the UK’s criminal justice response to human trafficking. Available at: https://www.antislavery.org/reports/in-the-dock-examining-the-uks-criminal-justice-response-to-trafficking/ (accessed 26 February 2025).

Bain

(2021) Is fashion ready to put its supply chain on the Blockchain? Business of Fashion, 12 October. Available at: https://www.businessoffashion.com/articles/technology/is-fashion-ready-to-put-its-supply-chain-on-the-blockchain/ (accessed 26 February 2025).

Barkay

Davies

Pietropaoli

, et al. (2024) Anti-trafficking chains: Analyzing the impact of transparency legislation in the UK construction sector. Law & Social Inquiry 49(4): 2152–2183.

Benson

Simpson

(2024) Understanding White-Collar Crime: An Opportunity Perspective, 4th edn. New York: Routledge.

Benson

Van Slyke

Cullen

(2016) Core themes in the study of white-collar crime. In: Benson

Van Slyke

Cullen

(eds) The Oxford Handbook of White-Collar Crime. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 1–22.

Benstead

Hendry

Stevenson

(2018) Horizontal collaboration in response to modern slavery legislation: An action research project. International Journal of Operations & Production Management 38(12): 2286–2312.

Benstead

Hendry

Stevenson

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

Benstead

Mwesiumo

Moradlou

, et al. (2024) Entering the world behind the clothes that we wear: Practical applications of Blockchain technology. Production Planning & Control 35(9): 947–964.

Bociga

Davies

(2025) White-Collar and Organizational Crime: New Ideas, Directions, and Perspectives. Bristol: Bristol University Press.

10.

British Fashion Council (2022) The Economic Impact of the UK Fashion Industry in 2021. London: British Fashion Council.

11.

Broad

Turnbull

(2019) From human trafficking to modern slavery: The development of anti-trafficking policy in the UK. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research 25: 119–133.

12.

Burdon

(2016) A plea for adoption of ethical compliance: Avoiding pitfalls of compliance groupthink and consulting. Journal of Financial Crime 23(1): 187–200.

13.

Camargo

Pereira

SCF

Scarpin

MRS

(2020) Fast and ultra-fast fashion supply chain management: An exploratory research. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management 48(6): 537–553.

14.

Carle

Brewer

(2023) The United Kingdom modern slavery act: Are we making progress? A look at organizational commitment to eradicating modern slavery. Transnational Corporations 30(2): 71–103.

15.

Caspersz

Cullen

Davis

, et al. (2022) Modern slavery in global value chains: A global factory and governance perspective. Journal of Industrial Relations 64(2): 177–199.

16.

Centre for Social Justice (2013) It happens here: Equipping the UK to fight modern slavery. Available at: https://www.centreforsocialjustice.org.uk/library/it-happens-here-equipping-the-united-kingdom-to-fight-modern-slavery (accessed 26 February 2025).

17.

Chen

(2024) How Blockchain adoption affects supply chain sustainability in the fashion industry: A systematic review and case studies. International Transactions in Operational Research 31(6): 3592–3620.

18.

Choi

Netland

Sanders

, et al. (2023) Just-in-time for supply chains in turbulent times. Production and Operations Management 32(7): 2331–2340.

19.

Chrimes

Heim

(2024) The fashion product passport: In search of the ‘killer app’’. In: Dana

Boardman

Salamzadeh

, et al. (eds) Fashion and Environmental Sustainability. Berlin; Boston, MA: de Gruyter, pp. 149–168.

20.

Christ

Helliar

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

21.

Chuang

(2014) Exploitation creep and the unmaking of human trafficking law. American Journal of International Law 108(4): 609–649.

22.

Clark

Hunter

Pickford

, et al. (2022) How do licensing regimes limit worker interests? Evidence from informal employment in Britain. Economic and Industrial Democracy 43(1): 431–449.

23.

Davies

Malik

(2024) The Organisation of Crime and Harm in the Construction Industry. London: Routledge.

24.

Davies

Broad

Benstead

(2024) Modern slavery and digital technology in ‘fast fashion’: The transparency dividend. Available at: https://blog.policy.manchester.ac.uk/posts/2024/07/modern-slavery-and-digital-technology-in-fast-fashion-the-transparency-dividend/ (accessed 26 February 2025).

25.

Fashion Capital (2025) How the Galaxius system transformed fashion enter’s factory. Available at: https://www.fashioncapital.co.uk/insights/how-the-galaxius-system-transformed-fashion-enters-factory/ (accessed 26 February 2025).

26.

Fashion Revolution (2022) Fashion Transparency Index. 2022 Edition. London: Fashion Revolution.

27.

Fashion Revolution (2024) Fashion transparency index. Available at: https://www.fashionrevolution.org/fashion-transparency-index/ (accessed 26 February 2025).

28.

Gadd

Karstedt

Messner

(eds) (2012) The Sage Handbook of Criminological Research Methods. London: Sage.

29.

Garcia-Torres

Rey-Garcia

Saenz

(2024) Enhancing sustainable supply chains through traceability, transparency and stakeholder collaboration: A quantitative analysis. Business Strategy and the Environment 33(7): 7607–7629.

30.

Gottschalk

(2022) Trusted chief executives in convenient white-collar crime. Crime & Delinquency 71(8): 2845–2873.

31.

H&M Group (2022) Modern slavery statement 2022. Available at: https://hmgroup.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/HM-Group-Modern-Slavery-Statement-2022.pdf (accessed 26 February 2025).

32.

Hess

(2021) Modern slavery in global supply chains: Towards a legislative solution. Cornell International Law Journal 54(2): 247–292.

33.

Institute for Government (2021) Annex: 2019 Conservative Manifesto Table of Pledges. London: Institute for Government.

34.

Institute for Human Rights and Business (2016) Corporate responsibility for forced labour and human trafficking.

35.

Kalla

Smith

Kuraku

, et al. (2023) Study and analysis of Chat GPT and its impact on different fields of study. International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology 8(3): 827–833.

36.

Labour Party (2024) Change – Labour Party Manifesto 2024. London: Labour Party.

37.

LeBaron

(2020) Combating Modern Slavery: Why Labour Governance is Failing and What We Can Do about It. Cambridge: Polity.

38.

Lord

Broad

(2018) Corporate failures to prevent serious and organised crimes: Foregrounding the ‘Organisational’ component. European Review of Organised Crime 4(3): 27–52.

39.

Lord

Levi

(2025) Organising White-Collar and Corporate Crimes. London: Routledge.

40.

Seidl

McNulty

(2021) Challenges and practices of interviewing business elites. Strategic Organization 19(1): 81–96.

41.

McGaughey

Voss

Cullen

, et al. (2022) Corporate responses to tackling modern slavery: A comparative analysis of Australia, France and the United Kingdom. Business and Human Rights Journal 7(2): 249–270.

42.

Mantouvalou

(2018) The UK Modern Slavery Act 2015 three years on. Modern Law Review 81(6): 1017–1045.

43.

Marques

Morais

Terra

(2024) More than meets the eye: Misconduct and decoupling against Blockchain for supply chain transparency. Production and Operations Management 34(5): 1057–1075.

44.

M&S (2023) Modern slavery statement. Available at: https://corporate.marksandspencer.com/sites/marksandspencer/files/2023-06/modern-slavery-statement-2022-23-FINAL-1.pdf (accessed 4 August 2025).

45.

Naeem

Ozuem

Howell

, et al. (2023) A step-by-step process of thematic analysis to develop a conceptual model in qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods. Epub ahead of print 8 November. DOI: 10.1177/16094069231205789.

46.

New

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

47.

Nolan

(2022) Chasing the next shiny thing: Can human rights due diligence effectively address labour exploitation in global fashion supply chains? International Journal for Crime, Justice and Social Democracy 11(2): 1–14.

48.

Oberheim

Davies

Giese

, et al. (2025) Exploring corporate violations through public data: A comparative analysis of financial offending in the UK and US. Journal of Criminal Justice 99: 102431.

49.

Pautasso

Ferro

Osella

(2019) Blockchain in the Fashion Industry: Opportunities and Challenges. Brussels: Links.

50.

Petintseva

Faria

Eski

(2020) Interviewing Elites, Experts and the Powerful in Criminology. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.

51.

Phillips

(2015) Private governance and the problem of trafficking and slavery in global supply chains. In: Waite

Craig

Lewis

, et al. (eds) Vulnerability, Exploitation and Migrants. Insecure Work in a Globalised Economy. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 15–27.

52.

Pinnington

Benstead

Meehan

(2023) Transparency in supply chains (TISC): Assessing and improving the quality of modern slavery statements. Journal of Business Ethics 182(3): 619–636.

53.

Ramasastry

(2015) Corporate social responsibility versus business and human rights: Bridging the gap between responsibility and accountability. Journal of Human Rights 14: 237–259.

54.

Refslund

(2021) When strong unions meet precarious migrants: Building trustful relations to unionise labour migrants in a high union-density setting. Economic and Industrial Democracy 42(2): 314–335.

55.

Saberi

Kouhizadeh

Sarkis

, et al. (2019) Blockchain technology and its relationships to sustainable supply chain management. International Journal of Production Research 57(7): 2117–2135.

56.

Sarfaty

(2015) Shining light on global supply chains. Harvard International Law Journal 56(2): 419–563.

57.

Sauer

Orzes

Culot

(2024) Blockchain in supply chain management: A multiple case study analysis on setups, contingent factors, and evolutionary patterns. Production Planning & Control 35(9): 901–916.

58.

Shou

Domenech

(2022) Integrating LCA and Blockchain technology to promote circular fashion–A case study of leather handbags. Journal of Cleaner Production 373: 133557.

59.

Strand

Lotfi

Flynn

, et al. (2024) A systematic literature review of modern slavery in supply chain management: State of the art, framework development and research opportunities. Journal of Cleaner Production 435: 140301.

60.

The North Face (2025) Modern slavery and human rights statement. Available at: https://d1io3yog0oux5.cloudfront.net/_946a60a6130a2dfce967f3ef7374f30c/vfc/files/pages/vfc/db/436/description/20250618/Modern_Slavery_Act_Disclsoure_Statement.pdf (accessed 4 August 2025).

61.

Treiblmaier

(2018) The impact of the Blockchain on the supply chain: A theory-based research framework and a call for action. Supply Chain Management 23(6): 545–559.

62.

Uddin

Azmat

Fujimoto

, et al. (2023) Exploitation in Bangladeshi ready-made garments supply chain: A case of irresponsible capitalism? The International Journal of Logistics Management 34(1): 164–188.

63.

UK Parliament (2024) Artificial intelligence: Ethics, governance and regulation. Available at: https://post.parliament.uk/artificial-intelligence-ethics-governance-and-regulation/ (accessed 26 February 2025).

64.

van Erp

Huisman

(2017) Corporate crime. In: Brisman

Carrabine

South

(eds) The Routledge Companion to Criminological Theory and Concepts. London: Routledge, pp. 248–252.

65.

Wincup

(2017) Criminological Research: Understanding Qualitative Methods, 2nd edn. London: Sage.

66.

Woolfson

(2024) Tesco introduces ‘passports’ for clothes as EU clampdown looms. The Telegraph, 11 August. Available at: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/08/11/tesco-signs-up-passports-clothes-eu-clampdown-looms/ (accessed 26 February 2025).