ETI argues that the absence of a well-designed mandatory human rights due diligence legislation leaves workers in global supply chains without sufficient protection and could expose the UK to heightened trade and economic risks.
The current approach, highlighted by the UK Modern Slavery Act of 2015, relies on company disclosure rather than enforceable accountability measures.
Go deeper with GlobalData
Discover B2B Marketing That Performs
Combine business intelligence and editorial excellence to reach engaged professionals across 36 leading media platforms.
ETI states that this method has proven inadequate. Independent academic research, three parliamentary committees, and the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights have all recommended mandatory due diligence frameworks.
The UN has specifically urged the UK to prioritise the introduction of such requirements.
ETI notes that over £4.5tn in assets under management is represented by investors who have publicly called for mandatory due diligence legislation.
Research by the European Commission indicates that more than three-quarters of surveyed businesses believe mandatory regulation would be beneficial, providing consistency for responsible companies and preventing unfair competitive advantages for those that do not address risks.
Internationally, countries including France, Germany and the broader EU have introduced binding frameworks. With the EU and US enacting tighter import restrictions on goods linked to forced labour, and with the UK importing £20bn worth of high-risk goods each year, ETI warns that the UK risks being left behind.
While the King’s Speech omitted explicit references to modern slavery, government briefing notes mentioned it in connection with the Immigration and Asylum Bill, depicting it mainly as an immigration enforcement challenge.
ETI suggest this framing could limit survivor protections and allow questionable corporate practices to persist. Without a legal requirement for companies to assess and address supply chain risks, the risk of ongoing exploitation remains, regardless of changes to immigration policy.
The organisation also emphasises the need for accountability in supply chains, particularly affecting workers producing products for UK businesses, many of whom continue to face low wages, hazardous conditions, and discrimination.
The independent body cites a statistic that fewer than 10% of the world’s most influential companies currently evaluate human rights risks throughout their operations.
Support for stronger laws is reflected in public attitudes, with ETI citing data that 80% of UK consumers back legislation ensuring that products are free from abuse.
The Government has also pledged to defend the rights of women and girls, who experience disproportionate exposure to risks such as gender-based violence within high-risk supply chains.
ETI executive director Giles Bolton said: “We’ve been making the case for this legislation alongside businesses, trade unions and civil society for years – and it’s been encouraging to see so many countries move forward with it. But the UK is being left behind, and UK multinationals are already having to comply with overseas legislation regardless.
“We’d urge the Government to look again at what mHREDD could deliver: not just for workers and communities, but for supply chain resilience and a level playing field for the responsible businesses already doing the right thing.”
Government pressure growing beyond labour rights
The ETI’s warning also lands amid wider industry frustration over delays to broader business and supply chain policy following the King’s Speech.
British Retail Consortium chief executive Helen Dickinson recently warned that “there is no excuse for allowing politics to get in the way of the immediate action needed”.
She said: “In the face of a looming inflationary storm sparked by the Iran crisis, the government must act now to tackle rising energy, tax and regulatory costs at a time when many households are struggling to keep their heads above water.”
Dickinson described the European Partnership Bill as a “golden opportunity to reduce friction and red tape” in EU trade, though she stresses businesses will need practical support to manage regulatory changes, including SPS requirements.
On the Energy Independence Bill, she says it fails to address high energy costs or non-commodity charges that make up to 65% of retailers’ bills, and calls for reforms to improve predictability and support local renewables.
Dickinson welcomes the Small Business Protections Bill’s focus on fair payment terms but urges flexibility in implementation, and backs the Enhancing Financial Services Bill while calling for continued action on unfair card fees and stronger support for investment and growth in payments markets.
“The decisions this government makes in the next few days and weeks will have a major impact on the price of food and essentials for the rest of the year. Every moment of indecision will deepen the damage done to the British economy and extend the pain felt by households everywhere.”
