When the UK Modern Slavery Act (“MSA”) came into force in 2015, it was hailed as a landmark for supply chain transparency on a key human rights risk. Today, there is widespread recognition among stakeholders that the UK may have fallen behind in its approach to corporate human rights regulation. The MSA’s core corporate-facing provision places a reporting obligation on certain companies, but it does not require those companies to conduct human rights due diligence and there are no penalties for non-compliance. At most, the Government has the power to seek an injunction to compel publication of a transparency statement, but there are no recorded instances of this power being exercised. Nonetheless, recent developments suggest that there may be movement in the UK in the coming year. In this post, we take stock of the current UK landscape and flag potential developments to track in the year ahead.
1. Background
Section 54 of the MSA requires large companies that carry on business in the UK to publish an annual slavery and human trafficking statement detailing the steps they have taken to prevent modern slavery in their businesses and supply chains. However, Section 54 does not impose due diligence requirements or mandate what the statement must cover; instead, it offers guidance on what companies may choose to include.
In recent years, there have been various proposals for reform. For example:
- In 2017, the UK Joint Committee on Human Rights (“JCHR”) released a report proposing a “failure to prevent” offence for corporate human rights abuses, modelled on the Section 7 offence in the UK Bribery Act 2010 (which has since inspired additional failure to prevent offences applicable to the facilitation of tax evasion and fraud). Most recently, in its July 2025 report, the JCHR recommended that the Government implement its 2017 proposal but did not expressly call for a new criminal offence. Instead, it recommended creating a civil cause of action for “failure to prevent” forced labour, aimed at giving survivors clear routes to pursue claims against companies in UK courts.
- In 2024, a Private Members’ Bill initiated by a backbench member of the House of Lords — the Commercial Organisations and Public Authorities Duty (Human Rights and Environment) Bill — sought to impose legal duties on businesses and public authorities to identify, prevent, mitigate and remedy human rights and environmental harms within their operations and supply chains, and proposed civil and criminal liability for non-compliance. The Bill was not backed by the then-Conservative Government, so it did not make progress in advance of the 2024 General Election.
II. Growing momentum
Despite limited movement in recent years, three developments in late 2025 suggest there may be renewed momentum for legislative reform.
1. Responsible business conduct review: First, the Government announced in its Trade Strategy 2025 that it is launching a review of its approach to managing responsible business conduct (the “RBC Review”). The review will focus on the global supply chains of businesses operating in the UK and may recommend further measures.However, the Trade Strategy signalled that any new measures would need to promote a coordinate approach to responsible business issues that minimises compliance costs in line with Government commitments. In that regard, UK policymakers are likely to seek alignment with European and other international initiatives, to avoid overburdening companies with new standards. In parallel, the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office is conducting its National Baseline Assessment (“NBA”) of the Implementation of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (“UNGPs”) across the UK. This is being conducted by the University of Nottingham Rights Lab and considers how the UK Government and UK businesses have implemented each of the three pillars of the UNGPs: state duty to protect; business responsibility to respect; and access to remedy.The NBA is expected to conclude in March 2026, but the Government has not provided any updates regarding the timing of the RBC Review.
2. Response to JCHR recommendations: Second, the Government responded to the JCHR’s July 2025 report, in which it stated that the RBC Review will consider a range of potential measures, including a potential “failure to prevent” obligation related to forced labour, among other harms.
3. Proposal from the UK’s Anti-Slavery Commissioner: On December 16, 2025, the UK’s Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner (“IASC”) (a role established under the MSA to promote best practices in combating modern slavery and human trafficking offences) published a proposal for human rights due diligence legislation in the UK. Inspired by regimes in a range of jurisdictions, the proposal is framed as a contribution to the Government’s RBC Review and includes the model text for a potential Forced Labour and Human Rights Bill (hereafter, the “Proposed Bill”). The IASC’s suggestion that the proposal should be included by the Government in its legislative programme at the next King’s Speech is unlikely to be adopted. However, the proposal may carry weight, having been developed by credible stakeholders — namely the IASC, in partnership with Omnia strategy (founded by Cherie Blair CBE, KC) — and informed by consultations with companies, rightsholders and international governments.
The Proposed Bill incorporates a range of measures:
- Civil responsibility for serious human rights harm: The Proposed Bill would establish civil liability for in-scope commercial organisations and public authorities where a serious human rights harm occurs and the relevant organisation either: (a) caused or contributed to the harm, or (b) the harm is directly linked to its operations, products or services by its business relationships. While the Proposed Bill uses different terminology, the model language draws on the UK “failure to prevent” offences referenced above. In particular, the Proposed Bill would establish a defence to responsibility for serious human rights harm where the relevant organisation has undertaken “reasonable due diligence” to prevent the harm from occurring.
- Criminal responsibility for serious human rights harm. In addition to civil liability, the Proposed Bill would impose criminal liability on a relevant organisation that is deemed to be responsible for serious human rights harms, in circumstances where the relevant organisation’s conduct would constitute a specified offence if it had occurred in the UK.The proposed list of specified offences includes, among others, the slavery and human trafficking offences under the MSA.The senior officers of a relevant organisation — such as directors, managers or company secretaries — may also be criminally liable if the serious human rights harm occurred with their “consent or connivance”.
- Forced labour import ban: The Proposed Bill would prohibit goods produced or transported using forced labour from being made available on, imported into or exported from the UK market. Furthermore, the Proposed Bill would empower the Government to designate certain categories of products as presumed to be made or transported using forced labour. (This provision is akin to the UFLPA in the US, which invokes a rebuttable presumption of forced labour on importers of goods from Xinjiang.)
- Reporting: The Proposed Bill would repeal the Section 54 reporting requirement under the MSA and replace it with a regime requiring relevant organisations to report annually on any serious human rights harms for which the company “may be responsible” (or, alternatively, if the company determines that no such harms occurred, the reasons why the company made that determination) and their due diligence measures.
The Proposed Bill generally would apply to UK-based and overseas companies carrying on business or part of a business in the UK, supplying goods or services, and with annual worldwide turnover of at least £36 million (mirroring the current application of Section 54 of the MSA). However, the forced labour prohibition would apply to any person, so even small and medium sized enterprises or individuals could be subject to monetary penalties if they are found to have contravened the prohibition.
III. What to track in 2026
With the growing momentum towards legislative reform, it is important that businesses track potential developments, including the results of the National Baseline Assessment consultation and the outcome of the RBC Review, through 2026. There may also be opportunities to engage at a policy level to influence the development of any new measures.
This blog post was written with the contributions of Lizzie Davy and Roman Kenny-Manning.