A new report, produced by the University of Oxford and University of Nottingham, has found that the UK’s strategy to address modern slavery concerns in the Indo-Pacific through trade is not “coherent” and fails to adopt “best practice” on the issue.
It also found there was a need for “a tailored and context-specific approach” that accounts for the dramatic differences between countries in the region.
‘Increasingly clear’
The authors of the report argue that “the relationship between trade and investment and modern slavery risks and outcomes is becoming increasingly clear”, while noting that there are tensions around balancing economic considerations with “a commitment to universal human rights norms”.
Looking particularly at the Indo-Pacific region, which has the highest estimated incidence of modern slavery in the world at 59% of the global estimate, the report examined four case study countries: China, India, Malaysia and Thailand.
One finding highlighted by the report’s authors is that the consideration of modern slavery in the signing of bilateral investment treaties (BITs) “remains limited across the board”, receiving no mention in any of the BITs signed between the UK and the featured countries.
Econometrics
Analysis found that international trade’s effect on forced labour varies depending on the goods and partners involved.
When an agreement involves a partner with low labour standards and protections, increasing bilateral trade also increases forced labour, “particularly where trade involves production of primary goods and products intensive in unskilled labour”.
In its review of the data, the report states:
“Our quantitative analysis demonstrates that these links remain highly differentiated owing to different trade patterns, terms of trade between trading partners, institutional characteristics of trading partners, and the degree to which the production of goods is labour intensive.
“The effectiveness of trade and investment measures to address modern slavery risk thus requires continued research and econometric analysis.”
Case studies
The study also built four qualitative case studies on the relationship between trade and investment agreements and modern slavery outcomes.
Among the conclusions from this research is the suggestion that market size and power has a significant effect on the ability of other nations to secure modern slavery provisions in trade agreements, and that national legislation on the issue varies “dramatically”.
Though “some level of standardisation” is required in the approach to modern slavery in the UK government’s trade and investment strategy in the Indo-Pacific, there is also a need for “contextual adaptation and nuancing” that reflects the differences between countries in the region.
“Context-specific approaches to the design, implementation, monitoring, and revision of trade and investment instruments and relations is needed in UK relations with Indo-Pacific states.”
Recommendations
The authors argue for a “systematic approach” to integrating modern slavery issues into UK trade strategy “with robust monitoring and engagement mechanisms”. Existing agreements should also be reviewed and there was an identified need for “tailored and context-specific approach”.
Formal commitments on modern slavery and human rights should be a condition of trade and investment negotiations, the report adds.
As well as improved funding for research and assessment of progress on human rights issues in supply chains, there is also a call from the authors for “a coherent foreign policy approach to advancing modern slavery protections in third states”.
This requires the integration of antislavery efforts in the sphere of trade “with other soft power domains” including development policy.
Professor Dame Sara Thornton, one of the authors of the study, said on its findings:
“Trade and investment agreements are potentially valuable tools, but this research has illustrated a lack of a coherent strategy and approach. There is much more that can be done to reflect modern slavery concerns in both negotiations and agreements.”
Member exclusive
