Authored By: Maya Hussain
Cardinal Newman College
Introduction
In 2023, a worldwide record of 50 million people trapped into the cruel system of modern slavery according to the Global Slavery Index, with the fashion industry being the largest sector responsible for forced labour and exploitation. Fashion garments imported to G20 countries were the most at risk for production through forced labour exploitation, worth £111.4 billion, revealing the large-scale exploitation within the infamous fashion industry.
Further statistics showing 96% of fashion brands do not disclose if their foreign labour workers in their supply chain are paid a living wage, demonstrating the significance of the issue. The main focus of this article will be regarding Shein and Temu, companies which have been increasing with popularity of fashion garments and products due to lower prices. However the increasing demand has also raised increasing concern regarding the treatment of labour workers within the companies global supply chains and whether current UK laws are sufficient to tackle modern slavery portrayed in front of our very own eyes.
Previously to combat modern slavery, the Modern Slavery Act 2015 was introduced which under S54 required businesses to publish statements at the end of each financial year regarding the steps they have taken to avoid and prevent slavery within their operations and supply chains.
However this article will argue the legislation has still allowed for companies to avoid accountability more specifically Shein and Temu and examine the harmful impact avoiding accountability has on vulnerable workers and the extent to which the Modern Slavery Act 2015 protects these individuals from exploitation from corporations aiming for low priced products to appeal to consumers. The article will also cover the necessity for stricter ethical obligations and greater corporate social responsibility within global supply chains.
II) The Existing Legal Framework
A) Legal Framework
The foundational legislation regarding labour exploitation is under s54 Modern Slavery Act 2015, which updated the legislation on how the English legal system holds global supply chains accountable in the case of Begum v Maran (UK) Limited [2021] EWCA Civ 326 which raised questions regarding if D owed a duty of care to workers despite having no direct control over the shipyard. To establish if D owes a duty of care three principles must be satisfied (i) D owes C a duty of care; (ii) Has D breached the duty and fallen below the standard of a reasonable man; (iii) D causes a loss to C through their negligence (principles of causation and remoteness).
In this case the company played a more than minimal role in sending vessels to the buyer, knowing it would be sent to a dangerous yard in Bangladesh. The case signified and updated the legislation regarding ESG corporate social responsibility under the English negligence law. Businesses are unable to remove accountability against the actions of third party supply chains if they fail to control working environments.
B) Gap in the modern Slavery Act 2015
Despite clear progression being made, s54 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 has been widely criticised as companies are only required to state what they are doing to avoid exploitation even if they are doing nothing without enforcing penalties, demonstrating s54 as transparent without meaningful accountability. High profile cases such as Leicester Garment Industry Scandal [2020] illustrate weakness in the act, where workers were found manufacturing fash-fashion clothing garments on a wage of £3.50 an hour with poor and unsafe working conditions reported. This scandal criticised large company supply chains of Boohoo. To prosecute the defendants the courts used the governing legal principles from illegal employment, national minimum wage compliance and supply chain due diligence rather than under the Modern Slavery Act. This meant there were no criminal sanction or criminal verdict issued against Leicester Garment industry. The courts provided a distinction that wage theft cases like the one above do not meet the standards for forced or compulsory labour under the Modern Slavery Act 2015 revealing a significant gap in the law as exploitative labour conducted by global supply chains can avoid liability for forced or compulsory labour. A clear trend emerges within case law as Modern Slavery offences are narrowly interpreted allowing labour exploitation to be addressed through employment legislation rather than criminal sanctions.
C) Ughyar Forced Labour
Articles have been published shedding light onto claims of Shein being accused of forced Ughyar labour with evidence being submitted to the FCA (UK’s Financial Conduct Authority) regarding Shein’s suppliers being liable for forced labour camps in Ughyar. Human rights advocates have urged it to make it so Shein is unable to list its shares on the London Stock Exchange. The infamous leading fast-fashion company have also faced scrutiny of being responsible for child labour in their supply chains which clearly violates S1 where if children are being made to work under threat or coercion this amounts to forced or compulsory labour.
Despite Shein reporting a zero- tolerance policy against forced labour, leaving the public unconvinced. This also raises questions regarding ethical practices in global supply chains and immorality as Shein has avoided criminal sanctions and restrictions despite proven allegations.
It is argued if S54 really does prevent exploitation. Although transparency is improved, multinational corporations such as Shein and Temu may operate according to the Act but still remain unable to guarantee forced labour is absent from their supply chains.
It is submitted that the courts narrowly interpret modern slavery offences especially when handling domestic cases compared to Ughyar forced labour allegations as domestic cases such as R V Martin Rooney and others [2019] EWCA Crim 1981 where vulnerable individuals were subjected to threats and their wages and benefits taken away whilst working in poor conditions. This case involved identifiable victims and direct coercion whereas international cases such as the Ughyar labour scandals involve investigating more complex global supply chains and to find liability means relying on corporate reporting, making prosecution under the Modern Slavery Act 2015 difficult.
The counter argument of s54 argues transparency under the Act encourages self regulation as consumers and investors are able to hold Shein and other corporations accountable, whilst removing excessive burden on businesses. However, as allegations continue regarding the exploitation of the Ughyar minorities, transparency allows for continued exploitation by companies without severe consequences of criminal prosecution.
III) Comparative perspectives
China
Chinese legislation focuses primarily on poverty alleviation, vocational training and counter terrorism rather than coercion, unlike UK Legislation. Despite the Ughyar labour allegations made by the United Nations that Ughyar minorities are subjected to forced labour whilst arguing exploitation claims are politically motivated. The Chinese government also argued legislations such as The Labour Law of the People’s Republic of China [1994] are in place to prohibit forced labour, however it is argued enforcement is limited. However the United Nations have questioned the Chinese government, if extensive restrictions imposed on the Ughyar minority sufficiently permits consent. Therefore, explaining why large companies like Shein were able to avoid serious consequences. In addition to this, the Chinese government continuously refused such claims against Ughyar forced labour conducted by Shein.
United States
The United States put into force the Ughyar Forced Labour Prevention Act [2021] (UFLPA) which was a response to the Chinese government’s exploitation and abuse of Ughyar minorities in Xinjiang. The US proposed a legislation that the Ughyar labour would be unable to enter the US unless the importer was able to provide evidence the goods were produced ethically and without labour exploitation.
IV) Conclusion
To conclude, whilst the Modern Slavery Act 2015 represents an advancement in morality within the UK Legislation and their response on how to hold forced labour, exploitation and coercion accountable with criminal sanctions, its effectiveness within the fashion garment industry remains insufficient. S1 and S2 both clearly provide clear repercussions and persecutions as was demonstrated in R V Rooney Martin and others, S54 adopts a different approach which prioritises transparency rather than accountability. This was evident with the Leicester Garment Scandal where low paid wages and poor working conditions fell under employment law rather than modern slavery. This meant less severe penalties.
Furthermore, the Ughyar forced labour allegations revealed the evident limitations in relying on corporate reports where multinational companies such as Shein can reject allegations made against them. This results in the conclusion, S54 is limited in ensuring truthful insight on how global supply chains operate.
Therefore, this article concludes the legislations to combat modern slavery are effective for domestic cases however less so in international supply chains, especially as companies such as Shein import frequently to the UK. To ensure greater ethical obligations and corporate social responsibility, stronger mechanisms and investigations should take place for non-compliance. Without harsher sanctions, vulnerable individuals such as low income households and children are susceptible to being exploited by companies aiming to reduce costs, by not paying fair wages, just to feed consumer demands for low prices.
Reference(S):
Cases
Begum v Maran (UK) Limited [2021] EWCA Civ 326
R V Martin Rooney and others [2019] EWCA Crim 681, [2019] 4 WLR 89
Secondary Sources
Alison Levitt QC, Independent Review into Boohoo Group PLC’s Leicester Supply Chain (2020) https://www.boohooplc.com accessed 19 June 2026.
Legislation.gov.uk, ‘Modern Slavery Act 2015’ (Legislation.gov.uk2015) <https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/30> accessed 18 June 2026
Schulz M, ‘Modern Slavery Is on the Rise. Fashion’s Role Remains Steady’ (Vogue25 May 2023) <https://www.vogue.com/article/modern-slavery-is-on-the-rise-fashions-role-remains-steady?> accessed 19 June 2026
Levitt A, ‘Independent Review into the Boohoo Group PLC’s Leicester Supply Chain’ (2020) <https://media.business-humanrights.org/media/documents/final-report-open-version-24.9.2020.pdf> accessed 19 June 2026
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, ‘Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act’ (U.S. Customs and Border Protection25 October 2022) <https://www.cbp.gov/trade/forced-labor/UFLPA> accessed 21 June 2026
‘Stop Uyghur Genocide Welcomes Shein’s Stalled LSE Bid’ (Leigh Day6 June 2025) <https://www.leighday.co.uk/news/press-releases/2025-news/stop-uyghur-genocide-welcomes-reports-of-shein-s-stalled-london-stock-exchange-bid/> accessed 19 June 2026
Legislation
Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act 2021, Pub L No 117-78, 135 Stat 1525.
Modern Slavery Act 2015
