Select Page

BRIAN ISELIN 9 Jan. 2023 — The end of a modern slavery and human rights journey: Vale, slavefreetrade International.

BRIAN ISELIN 9 Jan. 2023 — The end of a modern slavery and human rights journey: Vale, slavefreetrade International.

The end of a modern slavery and human rights journey: Vale, slavefreetrade International.

The orig­i­nal text can be found HERE.

A lit­tle over 6 years ago, I woke up with the idea for an NGO called slave­free­trade that would test busi­ness and sup­ply chains, with integri­ty and inde­pen­dence, and put a stamp of approval on them to gen­er­ate sales and give good com­pa­nies a foot up in their mar­kets. It was a mar­ket-dri­ven project to incite a shift from the cur­rent rapa­cious econ­o­my to a human rights-depen­dent one. We planned to har­ness the demand of con­sumers to dri­ve cor­po­rate behav­iour change. It all came down just (just!) to trig­ger­ing and per­pet­u­at­ing a loop of slave-free demand between con­sumers and businesses.

No alt text provided for this image

This week, the deci­sion was tak­en to close after bat­tling for all of those years with as many as 400 vol­un­teers at times, and the cur­rent 200 vol­un­teers. Let me start by thank­ing those hun­dreds who joined us over the last 6 years, those who did sup­port us, lent their advice and time, and pro­vid­ed skills and ser­vices to our work. It has been a gen­uine priv­i­lege to serve with you all, wit­ness your com­mit­ment, and good faith, and the hope for a bet­ter world that brought you to us in the first place.

But, despite the best inten­tions, we strug­gled con­stant­ly to deliv­er. Of course, the buck for that absolute­ly stops with me. We failed to get things done that, in hind­sight, prob­a­bly were over­ly Quixot­ic and could nev­er be done with­out the funds and full-time peo­ple. But we failed on real­ly sim­ple stuff, too. Mea culpa.

If you are inter­est­ed in learn­ing from oth­er people’s expe­ri­ence, even if a fail­ure, let me out­line some of the things we learned along the way. And might even form the basis of a half-decent book! 🙂 IMHO, it is impor­tant for our team that I pro­vide this small writ­ten lega­cy to feel those years are not wast­ed ones. We failed to break through the noise with a good project; so true that being a good idea or a com­pelling vision are far from being enough.

No alt text provided for this image

We learned a lot on the way, espe­cial­ly me. It start­ed with the deci­sion to take a non-prof­it path instead of a for-prof­it path. It was choos­ing the road less trav­elled, and it is less trav­elled for some very good reasons.

I learned not to be afraid of mis­takes or fail­ure: they are a giv­en even if they do def­i­nite­ly set you back every time. But to sum­mon the ener­gy regard­less to just keep going and change it up to learn from fail­ings and mis­takes. You won’t get rid of back­ward steps, they are ever-present, but

you can rise to the chal­lenge to switch up a gear from one step for­ward, two steps back, to two steps for­ward and one back.

I learned that vol­un­teer­ing is much hard­er than it looks for keep­ing a social impact and tech­nol­o­gy organ­i­sa­tion run­ning. I also learned that the world is not ready for a demand-side ini­tia­tive on human rights. It is going to take a great deal more of the demand-side con­ver­sa­tion to get this going. The awok­en com­mu­ni­ty is as yet waaaay too small.

I learned that escap­ing Founder Syn­drome in an organ­i­sa­tion is a great deal hard­er than it looks or sounds. Even though I, as the das­tard­ly cul­prit, tried to run as far and as fast as I could from it, we nev­er escaped its drag, and it is an exis­ten­tial threat to a startup.

Some of our col­lec­tive learn­ing includes:

We learned that peo­ple with mon­ey might spend on social impact, but we also learned that they were real­ly only inter­est­ed in help­ing — beyond giv­ing advice — a for-prof­it busi­ness and a 15% exit. A good cause or good idea does not in and of itself get funded.

We learned that keep­ing things mov­ing for­ward, achiev­ing against out­comes, in the face of con­stant vol­un­teer churn, is a Sisyphean task that results in con­stant rebuild­ing, and rebuild­ing, and rebuild­ing. It drains. It demo­ti­vates. Churn over a long time destroys even the best intent.

No alt text provided for this image

We learned right at the end not to be afraid of clo­sure. Maybe it should have come ear­li­er; there were quite a few huge jolts, exis­ten­tial threats, and tempt­ing moments. Or maybe we should still be push­ing. Clos­ing is not the out­come any­one wants from a project. But you should also not hit your head against the same wall time and again until all your best con­trib­u­tors are exhaust­ed. Leav­ing is some­times the wise choice.

As a human rights and mod­ern slav­ery project we learned that the world remains with­out a uni­ver­sal human rights frame­work for mea­sur­ing work­place con­di­tions. We made one, but it as yet has not found its recep­tive place in the world. We estab­lished that human rights can be quan­ti­fied. And that remote diag­nos­tic tools can give the best pic­ture of con­di­tions — the “best evi­dence”, in legal terms — any­where in the world.

No alt text provided for this image

We learned that peo­ple in work­places are by far the best evi­dence for and arbiters of their con­di­tions, but they are not rou­tine­ly and com­pre­hen­sive­ly canvassed.

We learned that most peo­ple deeply want to talk to some­one about their conditions.

We learned that there is a deep need for mod­ern slav­ery to be addressed through a human rights lens, not a crim­i­nal jus­tice one. And to recog­nise that mod­ern slav­ery and human rights abus­es are not aber­ra­tions in this world. On our watch, we have let our econ­o­my and cap­i­tal­ism be built on them.

We learned that every work­place has human rights issues, from gen­der pay gap to child labour. And that every work­place sits some­where on a human rights con­tin­u­um with mod­ern slav­ery at one end and decent work at the oth­er. And there are ways to work out quite pre­cise­ly where.

No alt text provided for this image

In our B2B project, Lib­er­tas, we learned it is def­i­nite­ly pos­si­ble to dis­cov­er and map entire sup­ply chains work­place by work­place. We learned we can use inves­tiga­tive tech­niques to remote­ly inter­view peo­ple. We can sep­a­rate vis­i­bil­i­ty from trans­paren­cy to ensure com­plete human rights trans­paren­cy while respect­ing com­mer­cial sen­si­tiv­i­ties. We learned it is pos­si­ble to save mil­lions of dol­lars for busi­ness in their com­pli­ance churn, juris­dic­tion to juris­dic­tion, by set­ting a sin­gle legal and pol­i­cy com­pli­ance bar. We learned impact can be mea­sured con­tem­po­ra­ne­ous­ly to ensure a net pos­i­tive inter­ven­tion. We learned we can build sup­ply chains of com­pa­nies where they not only start to col­lab­o­rate around human rights, but their prof­itabil­i­ty becomes com­plete­ly depen­dent on their shared human rights performance.

Mak­ing human rights and P&L co-depen­dent is absolute­ly the world we want to live in.

We also learned, and this might shock you, an over­whelm­ing % of busi­ness, and an even greater % of NGOs, gov­ern­ment agen­cies, and inter­na­tion­al organ­i­sa­tions, are not inter­est­ed in gen­uine­ly know­ing, nor inter­est­ed in sub­stance and rigour, about their work­place con­di­tions and sup­ply chain con­di­tions. It is still not clear to me if that is fear, igno­rance, indif­fer­ence, or all of these.

I think with gov­ern­ments, inter­na­tion­al orgs, and NGOs, it is a “holi­er than thou”, “beyond-reproach” con­di­tion­ing; unfair­ly will­ing to demand it only of the pri­vate sec­tor. I find it inter­est­ing that the same gov­ern­ments demand­ing cor­po­rate human rights due dili­gence don’t hold them­selves to the same stan­dard. The hypocrisy is clear; inter­na­tion­al organ­i­sa­tions, gov­ern­ments, and NGOs, that put them­selves out there as “hold­ing com­pa­ny’s feet to the fire”, demand­ing bet­ter cor­po­rate behav­iour, don’t do any­thing about their own posi­tion. Maybe it is too hard to hold some­one’s feet to the fire when you are hold­ing your own? We found busi­ness­es over­all more like­ly, and increas­ing­ly so, to do some of the nec­es­sary. It is counter-intu­itive, but def­i­nite­ly worth some soul-search­ing by inter­na­tion­al organ­i­sa­tions, gov­ern­ments, and NGOs, espe­cial­ly those who work in the areas touched by mod­ern slav­ery and human rights issues. Some­thing comes to mind about glass hous­es and stones…

For the vast major­i­ty of organ­i­sa­tions, we sad­ly learned that appear­ances are enough. The mar­ket is not ready for, or in need of, rig­or­ous approach­es. Vul­gar risk assess­ment tools, that hurt as much as they help, are the sad gold stan­dard right now. We learned that rig­or­ous assess­ment absolute­ly can be brought to bear for small mon­ey as long as there is vol­ume to make it work. But we learned that even that small price to pay for rigour in human rights mon­i­tor­ing is too much to ask.

A cuthroat world out there, the non­prof­it world is far from gen­teel or col­lab­o­ra­tive. We learned time and again that our kind­ness and will­ing­ness to col­lab­o­rate was often greet­ed with being cheat­ed, extort­ed, stolen from, or just plain let down. We learned giv­ing trust and get­ting a good out­come is pos­si­ble, but needs to be incred­i­bly selec­tive­ly done. I guess that is a les­son for all of life, right?

We learned that when you come up with a new idea, that flies in the face of exist­ing approach­es, some peo­ple with­out the vision or courage will laugh at you. We learned that laugh­ing stops, at some point, when it sud­den­ly does look like a good idea. Those same peo­ple, though, are now almost cer­tain­ly going to laugh at our clo­sure. Per­haps they will even expe­ri­ence schaden­freude today.

But remem­ber that naysay­ers and the unvi­sioned will laugh at your new idea. Per­se­vere. Let their ridicule be drowned out by the crash­ing waves of your good intentions.

And even­tu­al­ly you will out­pace their peals.

No alt text provided for this image

We learned that almost every organ­i­sa­tion does say they care about oth­er people’s human rights con­di­tions but, yet, are not moti­vat­ed to delve into their own. For the moment, we do see organ­i­sa­tions are almost 100% more will­ing to cast the first stone than take a good hard look at them­selves. I think and hope that will change. The soon­er the better

We learned there is an excit­ing and grow­ing inter­est in human rights in sup­ply chains, but that sus­tain­abil­i­ty real­ly remains all about the envi­ron­ment. We did learn a wave is com­ing on busi­ness and human rights. But, very sur­pris­ing­ly, the vast major­i­ty of com­pa­nies, espe­cial­ly multi­na­tion­als, are spec­tac­u­lar­ly under-pre­pared for it. In denial, even. And, while we believe we are at the wave­front of busi­ness and human rights, the wave was just too far from break­ing to sus­tain our insignif­i­cant NGO.

No alt text provided for this image

As a con­sumer project, our Free­domer work, we learned that a small but excit­ing – and grow­ing! — % of con­sumers do say they care about human rights and mod­ern slav­ery behind what they buy. We also learned, unfor­tu­nate­ly, that most do not fol­low through on their val­ues with their pur­chas­es. Again, that will change, I believe.

We learned a dif­fer­en­tia­tor such as a label on a prod­uct can moti­vate peo­ple to direct their pur­chase, espe­cial­ly on slavery.

We learned that a slave-free label can dri­ve as much as 100% con­sumer con­ver­sion on a wide range of products.

But we learned that the work required to get that into the mar­ket with integri­ty and rigour is not pos­si­ble for a vol­un­teer out­fit with no cash.

We learned that the phe­nom­e­nal vol­ume of sus­tain­abil­i­ty noise is over­whelm­ing con­sumer ears, mil­i­tat­ing against break­ing through.

It is also baf­fling, best­ing, and bebug­ger­ing (not a word, but you get the idea) busi­ness­es. We learned that break­ing through that noise takes a flood of finance. ABBA were right; mon­ey, mon­ey, money.

As a tech­nol­o­gy project, we learned that tech­nol­o­gy com­mu­ni­ty com­mit­ment to non­prof­its, social impact caus­es, and vol­un­teer­ing, is actu­al­ly rather skin-deep. Token, in-kind con­tri­bu­tions designed more to lock in poten­tial non-prof­it cus­tomers after the cred­its run dry aren’t very kind in-kinds. We will always earn the kudos of the nam­ing rights for the term “Right­stech”, tech­nol­o­gy to pro­mote and advance human rights. At least accord­ing to the Urban Dictionary. 🙂

We learned that, despite the best efforts of a small num­ber of well-intend­ed tech­nol­o­gy peo­ple, decent tech­nol­o­gy can­not be built with­out sig­nif­i­cant mon­ey and a promise of prof­it. We learned that it is not com­plex to design the tech­nol­o­gy need­ed to make a plat­form to deliv­er real-time human rights mon­i­tor­ing in glob­al sup­ply chains. But it costs. And boot­strapped vol­un­teers alone can­not deliv­er it.

No alt text provided for this image

On the fundrais­ing side, we learned very few fundrais­ers vol­un­teer, and that big talk is both com­mon and cheap. Also, we found that there are many show­bags (colour­ful but full of crap) out there. We learned that the doors to those with mon­ey – high net-worth, fam­i­ly offices, etc – are not eas­i­ly knocked. We learned grant appli­ca­tions are strong­ly hit and miss, extreme­ly labour-inten­sive, almost nev­er worth the inputs, and far from suf­fi­cient­ly wide­ly avail­able in con­trast to the demand for them. We learned that funds, such as grants, go only into the sta­tus quo. Big fun­ders in the “end mod­ern slav­ery” world get their mon­ey from sta­tus quo donors, so it makes sense new ideas don’t emerge. That is a bat­tle I under­es­ti­mat­ed; new ideas that go against the grain do not get sup­port­ed. We also learned — although knew this already, of course — that donors don’t want to fund the run­ning of an organ­i­sa­tion, for it to exist in the first place, but will fund only its projects.

No alt text provided for this image

We learned that, quite incred­i­bly, some peo­ple think vol­un­teer­ing is a form of mod­ern slav­ery. Let’s agree to ignore such tan­gi­ble stupidity.

Some con­sumers care about mod­ern slav­ery. Some busi­ness­es care about human rights. And that care is grow­ing. But it is only at the wave­front right now. We are 6 years ahead of the right time. Or maybe 10? Let’s see how the world moves in the next 4 years. 20 years ago when I set up a human traf­fick­ing con­sul­tan­cy, it was 20 years too soon as well, but every­one is sure going for it now. A Founder has got to some­how mag­i­cal­ly divine how long the wave will take to break, and not get on it too ear­ly. Being too far ahead of it means you will get dumped in the churn. How you make that assess­ment, if you are real­ly obsessed with a vision, I have no advice. I could not do it. Only hind­sight tells me we were (I was) wrong.

We def­i­nite­ly learned that this wave­front, and the grow­ing con­cern about busi­ness and human rights, is just mov­ing too slow­ly to keep a vol­un­teer non­prof­it wait­ing. As I learned in the army, wait­ing is demor­al­is­ing. Bring­ing peo­ple to the solu­tion with­out fund­ing is bound to fail, even­tu­al­ly, because there is a lim­it to how long you can keep it going, how you can keep vol­un­teers moti­vat­ed, on the smell of an oily rag. At times, we were down to our last 50 bucks. And with­out deep pock­ets you can­not demand or real­ly in any way dri­ve demand for your ser­vices; it has to come to you.

Rise above the pedes­tri­an and tawdry. If you have a big idea, don’t let thoughts of fail­ure — or even ridicule from “peers” — stop you from start­ing. Big things start from some­one who decid­ed to go for it, regard­less of what must be con­sid­ered a very high risk of fail­ure. Maybe the big­ger the idea the big­ger the fail­ure, but once in a while your big idea will get a foothold, even if just in com­mon con­scious­ness. And that is more of a win than a fail­ure, to my mind at least. And if you fail in this way, hold your head high, as our entire vol­un­teer cohort can.

In the final analy­sis, the sin­gle biggest les­son I come away with is that while “Made in Free­dom” should be a thing, it is not going to hap­pen at this time, at any kind of scale, with the integri­ty it deserves, nor any time soon. But it will come, or we should not be able look our­selves in the mirror.

No alt text provided for this image

Vale, slave­free­trade International.







Adlaudatosi Webinars Videos VIMEO

Videos of the speakers’ interventions adlaudatosi VIMEO

Adlaudatosi Webinars Videos YOUTUBE

Religious Helping Trafficking Victims along the Road of Recovery (ON-DEMAND VIDEO WEBINAR)

Religious Working In International Advocacy Against Human Trafficking (ON-DEMAND VIDEO WEBINAR)

Impact Of Human Trafficking On Health: Trauma (ON-DEMAND VIDEO WEBINAR)

Impact Of Human Trafficking On Health: Healing (ON-DEMAND VIDEO WEBINAR)

International Prosecution Of Human Trafficking — Where Are We Now? (ON-DEMAND VIDEO WEBINAR)

International Prosecution Of Human Trafficking — What can be done? (ON-DEMAND VIDEO WEBINAR)

International Prosecution Of Human Trafficking — Best Practices (ON-DEMAND VIDEO WEBINAR)

Demand As Root Cause For Human Trafficking – Sex Trafficking & Prostitution

Human Trafficking — Interview with Prof. Michel Veuthey, Order of Malta — 44th UN Human Right Council 2020

POPE’S PAYER INTENTION FOR FEBRUARY 2020: Hear the cries of migrants victims of human trafficking


Church on the frontlines in fight against human trafficking



Catholic social teaching

Doctrine sociale de l’Église catholique

Register to our series of webinars adlaudatosi on Human Trafficking

You have successfully registered !