A century of international efforts to eradicate slavery and trafficking in persons

On 25 September 1926, the international community formalized a landmark international legal commitment on the eradication of slavery and the slave trade in all their forms, everywhere in the world. The first international instrument of universal application with a global abolitionist vision, the Slavery Convention has been described as the world’s first international human rights treaty. When it was adopted by the League of Nations, 32 States committed themselves to the foundational framework; as of June 2026, 99 States are Parties to the Convention, as amended by the 1953 Protocol thereto.

A century after the adoption of the Slavery Convention, contemporary forms of slavery remain a critical challenge in all regions of the world. On any given day in 2021, an estimated 49.6 million people were subjected to “modern slavery”.¹ The next global estimates of modern slavery by the International Labour Organization (ILO), Walk Free and the International Organization for Migration (IOM) are expected in 2027. Many experts fear that the intervening years have seen a rising number of people subjected to slavery and trafficking globally. Increased risk is driven by the exacerbating impacts of conflict, instability, inequality, climate change and environmental degradation, combined with the persistent challenges of poverty, lack of access to decent work, racism and discrimination. These intersecting forces are not equally experienced; they disproportionately intensify vulnerability among the world’s poorest populations.

1. International Labour Organization, Walk Free and International Organization for Migration (2022). Global Estimates of Modern Slavery. ↩

Over time, the manifestations and forms of slavery prevalent in the world have continued to evolve. Traditional and descent-based forms persist in some countries and regions. In the Sahel region, the descendants of enslaved people continue to experience enslavement delineated along ethnic lines.² Da’esh systematically sold and gifted Yazidi women and girls into sexual enslavement as “spoils of war”.³ Reports of public “auctioning” of enslaved African migrants in Libya drew increased attention to the perpetuation and possible extension of a “slave market of migrants”.⁴ At the same time, new forms of slavery and trafficking have emerged. In online scamming compounds in South-East Asia, people lured across borders with promises of decent work face severe forms of exploitation, coercion and violence.⁵ Behind closed doors, children are abused for online sexual exploitation and abuse material, disseminated online and consumed around the world.⁶ Social media platforms are increasingly used to recruit and control victims.⁷ As the global landscape changes, so too do the patterns of contemporary forms of slavery and trafficking in persons, as well as the scale and dynamics of risk.

2. A/HRC/51/26, para. 22, A/HRC/54/30/Add.2 and A/HRC/30/35/Add.1, paras. 33–38. ↩
3. A/HRC/51/26, para. 34. ↩
4. See communication LBY 6/2017. All communications mentioned in the present report are available at https://spcommreports.ohchr.org/Tmsearch/TMDocuments. ↩
5. See www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2025/05/un-experts-urge-immediate-human-rights-based-action-tackle-forced. See also communications OTH 17/2025, OTH 18/2025, KHM 1/2025, CHN 4/2025, LAO 1/2025, MYS 1/2025, PHL 2/2025, THA 3/2025 and VNM 1/2025. ↩
6. See A/79/122. ↩
7. See A/78/161. ↩

The centenary of the Slavery Convention provides an important moment for reflection on the past 100 years of anti-slavery action. Simultaneously, the merger of the mandates of the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of slavery, including its causes and consequences, and the Special Rapporteur on trafficking in persons, especially women and children, presents a key transition point for tackling these interrelated practices within the United Nations system and beyond. The present report is positioned at this inflection point, exploring progress made and lessons learned over the past century to inform future policy and practice. In doing so, it looks towards a future for anti-slavery and anti-trafficking that is holistic and intersectional, and survivor-centred, survivor-informed and survivor-led.

To inform the present report, the Special Rapporteur conducted extensive consultations with diverse stakeholders representing States, civil society, persons with lived experience of slavery and trafficking, affected communities, workers organizations, and international agencies. A multilingual survey was disseminated widely to gather written input from a variety of stakeholders. A total of 236 substantive responses from all geographic regions were received. Additionally, 214 people from around the world participated in consultation workshops and 34 bilateral and multilateral meetings were held with key stakeholders representing Governments, intergovernmental agencies, civil society and survivor organizations.⁸

8. Detailed analysis and database of consultation responses is available from https://www.nottingham.ac.uk/research/beacons-of-excellence/rights-lab/programmes/law/global-consultation.aspx. Oral and written inputs from workshops, meetings and written submissions are synthesized in the present report, although individual comments and submissions are not directly cited. Individual inputs are more directly examined and cited in the accompanying research report, which informs the present report. ↩

The past century has delivered monumental advances in global anti-slavery and anti-trafficking agendas. While a plethora of challenges remain and new threats continue to emerge and evolve, progress in tackling slavery and trafficking is undeniable. Defining milestones identified during the consultations include the development of comprehensive international and regional legal frameworks setting normative standards and guiding State action; the expansion of responsibilities and action among international institutions; strengthened national legislation and enforcement systems; growing recognition of survivor rights and survivor leadership in shaping policy and programming; improved protection and assistance mechanisms; increased corporate accountability through human rights due diligence; improvements in the quality and extent of evidence and data; and a significant increase in public awareness and advocacy efforts that have helped to sustain momentum towards the eradication of these abuses.

Consultations revealed strong convergence around a set of core lessons emerging from the past century. Respondents consistently emphasized that legal frameworks, while essential, have proven insufficient on their own to eradicate exploitation. Structural drivers, such as poverty, inequality, restrictive migration systems and imbalanced labour markets, play a decisive role in sustaining vulnerability and pushing people into exploitation. This clearly underscores the limits of approaches narrowly focused on criminalization, and the need for systemic, multi-sector approaches addressing root causes, strengthening prevention and coordinating action across social, economic and governance domains. Experiences have shown that only intersectional, integrated and inclusive strategies leading to systemic change can deliver lasting improvements. More effective and holistic responses must incorporate survivor leadership, not only to deliver more ethical responses realizing the values underpinning anti-slavery and anti-trafficking, but also to improve the relevance, quality and impact of interventions.

The adoption of the Slavery Convention in 1926 heralded the beginning of a century of international legal developments prohibiting slavery in its historical and contemporary forms. This marked a fundamental transition in the global legal landscape, from a period where slavery and the countless atrocities perpetrated within systems of enslavement were actively enabled by many States’ legal frameworks, to an era of gradual but persistent abolitionism. By 1970, the prohibition of slavery had become a foundational and inescapable commitment of international law, confirmed by the International Court of Justice as a jus cogens norm of customary international law carrying obligations erga omnes.¹⁰ This normative international legal framework has been central to the global moral consensus underpinning contemporary anti-slavery that crystallized throughout the past century, and provides the underlying legal architecture for international, regional, national and local action. Both the evolving international legal frameworks and the consensus they represent and generate were recognized by stakeholders as the milestone achievement of the past century of anti-slavery.

10. International Court of Justice, Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Limited (Belgium v. Spain), Judgment, 5 February 1970. ↩

Updated for the new international order and United Nations system through a 1953 Protocol, the 1926 Convention provides a foundational definition of slavery which remains central to this day (article 1): “Slavery is the status or condition of a person over whom any or all of the powers attaching to the right of ownership are exercised.”

This definition was reaffirmed in the 1956 Supplementary Convention on the Abolition of Slavery, the Slave Trade, and Institutions and Practices Similar to Slavery (article 7), and reiterated in the definition of “enslavement” in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (article 7 (2) (c)). By incorporating both the status and condition of slavery, this definition encompasses situations of both de jure slavery (slavery in law) and de facto slavery (slavery in fact).

Although the 1926 Convention adopted a definition not formally tied to legal ownership, a narrower understanding of slavery persisted for decades in law and practice. This is reflected, for example, in European Court of Human Rights case law. In Siliadin v. France (2005), the Court approached article 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights in relatively restrictive terms, considering slavery to be limited to “the ‘classic’ meaning of slavery as it was practised for centuries”, requiring the exercise of a “genuine right of legal ownership”, thus reducing a person to “the status of an ‘object’”.¹¹ Yet, this narrow interpretation has been authoritatively displaced through renewed attention to the travaux préparatoires of the Slavery Convention¹² and evolving international, regional and national jurisprudence.¹³ As a result, the concept of slavery has shifted definitively from a formal, status-based notion of ownership to a broader, functional understanding grounded in control, coercion and exploitation.

11. European Court of Human Rights, Siliadin v. France, Judgment, 26 October 2005. ↩
12. Allain (2008). The Slavery Conventions: The Travaux Préparatoires of the 1926 League of Nations Convention and the 1956 United Nations Convention. Brill. The Bellagio-Harvard Guidelines on the Legal Parameters of Slavery (2012) provide further operational guidance. ↩
13. International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, Prosecutor v. Kunarac et al., 2001; High Court of Australia, R v. Tang, 2008; Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) Community Court of Justice, Hadijatou Mani Koraou v. Niger, 2008; European Court of Human Rights, Case of Rantsev v. Cyprus and Russia, 2010; and Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Case of the Hacienda Brasil Verde Workers v. Brazil, 2016. ↩

The 1956 Supplementary Convention introduced “institutions and practices similar to slavery” associated with subjection of persons to “servile status” – practices which may or may not rise to the level of slavery depending on the circumstances of the case, but which are nonetheless connected and must be abolished. The practices reflected in this instrument are debt bondage, serfdom, sale of a bride, transfer of a wife, inheritance of a widow, and delivery of children for exploitation (article 1). Like its 1926 predecessor, the 1956 Supplementary Convention recognized that institutions and practices similar to slavery might exist as either a legal status or a lived reality. Article 7 (b) describes a “person of servile status” as a “person in the condition or status resulting from any of the institutions or practices mentioned in article 1”.

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights enshrined the prohibition of slavery and the slave trade (alongside servitude and forced or compulsory labour) as a foundational element of international human rights law. Not only did the Covenant recognize the absolute prohibition of slavery and the slave trade in all their forms (article 8), it elevated the prohibitions of slavery, the slave trade and servitude by precluding derogation in times of public emergency (article 4 (2)). The additional layer of protection achieved through non-derogability couples with the customary status of the prohibition affirmed in the Barcelona Traction case to overlay the prohibition of slavery and the slave trade with “super-normative armour”.¹⁴ This elevated status underpins the moral consensus on anti-slavery objectives highlighted by stakeholders, which shapes the contemporary field.

14. Allain (2012). Slavery in International Law: Of Human Exploitation and Trafficking. Brill. ↩

Although the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights does not extend non-derogability to forced labour, it nonetheless integrates this prohibition within the same provision as slavery and servitude. These connections are also evident in the preambles of the 1926 and 1956 conventions, referencing forced labour. The international forced labour conventions were negotiated and adopted within the same periods and formalized shortly after the slavery conventions (in 1930 and 1957), expanding the critical international legal tapestry for combating severe forms of human exploitation globally.¹⁵ Forced labour, slavery and practices similar to slavery are further connected through their combined inclusion in the Worst Forms of Child Labour Convention, 1999 (No. 182).

15. Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29), supplemented by the Protocol of 2014, and the Abolition of Forced Labour Convention, 1957 (No. 105). ↩

The contemporary anti-trafficking regime – manifest through the adoption of the 2000 Protocol to Prevent, Suppress, and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children, supplementing the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime – further interlinks different forms of severe human exploitation in international law. This is achieved through the inclusion of various practices within the “purpose” element of the crime, including forced labour or services, slavery, practices similar to slavery, and servitude. In encapsulating different forms of exploitation, the Protocol brought new life to the international anti-trafficking regime, which had previously been defined by an exclusive focus on “prostitution”.

Like slavery, the legal concept of trafficking in persons has undergone an international evolution over the past century. However, rather than being a case of clarifying the scope of a historically rooted definition, the transformation reflects two distinct eras within the international and regional legal systems. In the first era, the concept was limited to regulating and controlling prostitution (in some cases requiring exploitation, in others framed more generally). Across eight international instruments adopted from 1904 to 1950, this first era of international anti-trafficking reflected a narrow focus on exploitation in the context of commercial sexual activities. However, the specific focus and scope of definitions and protections changed between the different instruments, with variable applicability delineated by age and gender, diverging scope of application between transnational and domestic cases, and distinct understandings of the necessity of coercion and compulsion.

The modern anti-trafficking regime bears limited resemblance to these early instruments, and is instead firmly rooted in the negotiation and adoption of the Trafficking in Persons Protocol. The Protocol is not limited to sexual exploitation; the definitions set forth in article 3 of the Protocol encompass various forms of exploitation, with trafficking in adults requiring a coercive element. The forms of exploitation enumerated in the Protocol are non-exhaustive, leaving space for States to expand on the minimum requirements expressed. Many States have chosen to do so within their domestic legal orders. For instance, 44 States have chosen to include reference to forced begging within trafficking crimes, 36 have included forced marriage, and 34 reference forced criminality.¹⁶ Other less common additions include practices such as exploitation in “harmful sports”,¹⁷ exploiting domestic labour,¹⁸ medical experimentation¹⁹ or harmful rituals or practices.²⁰ The 2024 amendment to the European Union Directive on preventing and combating trafficking in human beings further evidences this practice, including “exploitation of surrogacy, of forced marriage or of illegal adoption” within its explanation of the scope of the offence.²¹

16. See https://antislaverylaw.ac.uk/. ↩
17. Rwanda, Penal Code, art. 250. ↩
18. Madagascar, Law No. 2014-040 on the Fight Against Human Trafficking, art. 6. ↩
19. Honduras, Penal Code, art. 219; Ukraine, Criminal Code, art. 149; Saudi Arabia, Anti-Trafficking in Persons Law, art. 2. ↩
20. Uganda, Prevention of Trafficking in Persons Act, art. 1. ↩
21. See https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2024/1712/oj/eng. ↩

The contemporary anti-trafficking movement orients itself around the Trafficking in Persons Protocol, seldom engaging with prior anti-trafficking instruments, to the extent that many commentators have overlooked earlier instruments to describe the Protocol as the first international instrument to define human trafficking. During the consultations, the significance of the Protocol was repeatedly affirmed by stakeholders, who emphasized its importance for advancing global, national and local efforts and securing national legislative reforms. Meanwhile, earlier anti-trafficking instruments were never mentioned. This is more than a feature of the recency and wider scope of the Protocol. For many, it reflects a normative shift necessary for prevention of trafficking and protection of those subjected to it – that is, the decoupling of sex work and trafficking.

Throughout the past century, regional systems have played an important role in the development and implementation of anti-slavery and anti-trafficking, becoming increasingly important for realizing international norms in practice. A range of regional instruments and initiatives aid the fulfilment of States’ commitments in practice, providing contextualized strategies for combating slavery and trafficking. These initiatives are often emphasized by interlocutors as central to progress, advancing the field further and faster than can be achieved when pursuing global consensus.

Although framed in slightly different terms in each regional context, inclusion of the fundamental prohibition of slavery (and specific but diverging related practices) in the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (article 5), the American Convention on Human Rights (article 6) and the European Convention on Human Rights (article 4) provide regionally specific, legally binding obligations on States within these systems. Regional human rights jurisprudence has been central to interpretation of international norms, protection of people subjected to slavery and trafficking, and elaboration of States’ positive obligations in fulfilling their international human rights commitments.²³

23. See for instance Hadijatou Mani Koraou v. Niger, Rantsev v. Cyprus and Russia, and Hacienda Brasil Verde Workers v. Brazil. ↩

Regional human rights protections are further complemented through regional anti-trafficking frameworks, including the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) Convention against Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children (2015), the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings (2005), the European Union Directive on preventing and combating trafficking in human beings (2011, amended in 2024) and the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) Convention on Preventing and Combating Trafficking in Women and Children (2002). The SAARC Convention is the only modern instrument that ties itself to the earlier wave of anti-trafficking norms, focusing on “trafficking in women and children for prostitution” and referencing in its preamble the 1949 Convention for the Suppression of the Traffic in Persons and of the Exploitation of the Prostitution of Others, but not the Trafficking in Persons Protocol. Meanwhile, the European and ASEAN instruments meaningfully supplement the Trafficking in Persons Protocol, contributing region-specific monitoring mechanisms, establishing more specific coordination infrastructure, and expanding the scope of protective obligations. This is further complemented through intersecting regional rights frameworks, for instance related to child rights and rights of women and girls.

Throughout the evolution highlighted above, different parts of the United Nations system have made distinct but complementary contributions to the fight against slavery and trafficking. The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) has played a central role in developing normative standards and supporting monitoring mechanisms such as the Working Group on Contemporary Forms of Slavery, an expert body that was replaced by the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of slavery, including its causes and consequences, in 2007. The latter framed contemporary forms of slavery as a fundamental human rights violation requiring State accountability. The mandate of the Special Rapporteur on trafficking in persons, especially women and children, established in 2004, served the equivalent function on trafficking. These responsibilities are now advanced through the merged mandate.

The United Nations human rights system has made a decisive contribution, embedding slavery and trafficking within binding international human rights law and a normative framework that has increasingly focused on victims and survivors. Holders of special procedures mandates on slavery and trafficking have promoted accountability through reporting, standard-setting and public scrutiny at the international level. They also generated authoritative thematic guidance, issued country-specific recommendations and carried out advocacy, bringing visibility to emerging patterns such as linkages with conflict, gender inequality and migration, while advocating for rights-based responses. Treaty bodies, in turn, have clarified States’ obligations through general comments and concluding observations, translating broad prohibitions into concrete duties of prevention, protection and remedy, while systematically reviewing State compliance.

Complementing this, OHCHR has developed globally influential soft law standards. Notably, the Recommended Principles and Guidelines on Human Rights and Human Trafficking operationalize a human rights-based approach and shape legislation, policies and interventions worldwide.²⁵ Together, these mechanisms have advanced a coherent framework centred on accountability, victim and survivor protection, and integration of anti-trafficking and anti-slavery norms across legal and policy systems, significantly influencing international and domestic practice.

25. Available at www.ohchr.org/en/publications/reference-publications/recommended-principles-and-guidelines-human-rights-and-human-0. ↩

Other United Nations bodies have addressed slavery and trafficking in its interactions with various systems and issues. ILO has tackled the economic and structural dimensions of exploitation through binding labour standards, supervisory mechanisms and data collection on forced labour. The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) has advanced criminal justice responses, particularly through leadership on the Trafficking in Persons Protocol and support to States investigating and prosecuting trafficking networks. Other agencies have brought critical thematic lenses: IOM has addressed vulnerabilities linked to migration and provided direct assistance to victims; the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) has focused on exploitation of children; the United Nations Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women (UN-Women) has highlighted the gendered dynamics of contemporary forms of slavery; and the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has played a critical normative, protection and coordination role in addressing trafficking in humanitarian emergencies.

The Inter-Agency Coordination Group against Trafficking in Persons has played an important role in strengthening the global response to trafficking. Formally established in March 2007, the Group serves as a policy forum bringing together United Nations agencies and other international bodies. Created to enhance coordination across the international system and promote a more coherent, comprehensive and rights-based approach to preventing and combating trafficking, the Group’s impact lies in advancing a holistic and multi-sectoral understanding of trafficking, linked to broader challenges such as organized crime, migration, conflict and economic vulnerability, and issuing joint policy guidance, recommendations and calls to action. In doing so, it reinforces the need for integrated, cooperative and prevention-oriented responses, helping to embed anti-trafficking efforts within the wider international framework. Taken together, the collective work of United Nations bodies in addressing slavery and trafficking illustrates a century-long shift from formalistic abolition to a multidimensional and system-wide response to complex forms of exploitation.

The international instruments governing slavery, the slave trade, institutions and practices similar to slavery, servitude, forced or compulsory labour, and trafficking in persons each entail specific obligations for domestic legislation, in addition to wider implementation. Domestic criminalization of trafficking has been particularly successful, with the vast majority of States adopting national legislation addressing the practice.²⁷ Yet, in many States, alignment of domestic legislation to international commitments remains incomplete. This is most visible in the omission of specific acts, means or exploitative purposes enumerated in the Trafficking in Persons Protocol within domestic laws, failure to recognize the irrelevance of consent to exploitation, and requirements for coercive means to be present for trafficking in children.

27. Schwarz and Allain (2020), Antislavery in domestic legislation: An empirical analysis of national prohibition globally. See also Silver (2021), “Twenty years after the passage of the Palermo Protocol: identifying common flaws in defining trafficking through the first global study of domestic anti-trafficking laws”, Yale Law & Policy Review, 40 (1), 336. ↩

Many States have also realized their commitments to legislating domestically the prohibitions of slavery, the slave trade, and forced or compulsory labour through their constitutions, criminal codes and/or labour laws. However, while abolition of de jure slavery may be understood to have been completed across all States, the prohibition of de facto slavery remains incomplete. Many States have yet to enact domestic penal sanctions specific to slavery, the slave trade or forced labour. Very few have specifically legislated for servitude or institutions and practices similar to slavery. Although elements of slavery, forced labour, servitude and practices similar to slavery may be included within a trafficking crime, differences in legal construction translate to diverging requirements for evidencing the crimes, while imperfect conceptual overlap produces distinct meanings for victims and survivors. Standalone prohibitions are therefore warranted in line with respective international definitions.

National responses extend beyond legislation, with many States having substantially accelerated and intensified their efforts to combat slavery and trafficking.²⁸ The establishment of national referral mechanisms for identifying and supporting victims has been a particularly important development in this regard,²⁹ as have the creation of specialized response units,³⁰ multi-stakeholder cooperation mechanisms³¹ and dedicated policy frameworks, such as national action plans.³²

28. Improved enforcement was cited as a key milestone in 29 written submissions. ↩
29. See for instance Lannier (2026), “Coordinating multi-level responses to human trafficking: the role and limits of national referral mechanisms”. Trends in Organized Crime. ↩
30. UNODC (2008), “Tool 2.13: Developing inter-agency coordination mechanisms”. ↩
31. UNODC (2008), “Tool 2.12: Developing a multi-agency approach to intervention. ↩
32. UNODC (2008), Toolkit to Combat Trafficking in Persons, Tool 2.7: National action plans and strategies”, available at www.unodc.org/documents/human-trafficking/Toolkit-files/08-58296_tool_2-7.pdf; ILO (2025), National Action Plans on Forced Labour, available at https://www.ilo.org/sites/default/files/2025-08/FL%20Brief%2003%20-%20National%20Action%20Plans.pdf; OSCE (2023), Modernizing national action plans to strengthen States’ anti-trafficking efforts, available at https://cthb.osce.org/sites/default/files/f/documents/d/0/545419_1.pdf. ↩

Significant progress has been made at the national level. However, this has been highly uneven, both between and within States. Further action is needed in every country to realize complete abolition. Moreover, conflicting legal and policy developments in many contexts undermine the realization of States’ anti-slavery and anti-trafficking commitments in practice. This includes: increasingly restrictive immigration policies placing people at greater risk of exploitation and excluding them from protection; repressive and discriminatory laws (for instance, criminalizing persons of diverse sexual orientation and gender identity or reducing women’s autonomy in relation to marriage); labour rights frameworks denying or reducing protections for specific populations and sectors (such as migrant workers, domestic workers and people engaged in sex work); policies that perpetuate or push people into statelessness; and shrinking social safety nets.

People with lived experience have been at the heart of anti-slavery and anti-trafficking throughout history. Resistance to the institution of slavery, rebellions against systems of enslavement and the quest for freedom for all human beings have always been driven by those who have been subjected to such abuses. Yet, across the history of anti-slavery and abolitionism, the respect and recognition afforded to lived experience expertise and leadership has not always aligned with survivors’ critical role in the movement. Space for survivor leadership has often been constrained, reducing lived experience expertise to providing testimony and recounting trauma.

While survivors have always been central agents of change in efforts to eliminate slavery and trafficking, recent years have seen a groundswell of recognition for their critical importance at all levels. Policymakers, practitioners, advocates and researchers, among others, increasingly realize and value the unique expertise that survivors bring and have begun establishing architecture facilitating meaningful and ethical engagement and empowering survivor leadership. Opportunities for survivors to contribute to transforming both policy and practice at all levels are continuously expanding and embedding within institutions, and survivors are increasingly moving into a wide range of roles in the sector.

At the local level, survivor-led organizations provide peer support, direct services and community prevention, drawing on lived experience to identify risks and close protection gaps. A growing number of survivor networks, collectives and alliances provide platforms for survivors in a wide range of different contexts and internationally to connect, building communities, developing skills and capacity, and advancing advocacy. Civil society organizations are embedding lived experience expertise in the ethos of their organizations and day-to-day operations. In programming and projects, meaningful survivor engagement is increasingly presented as a prerequisite for effective and ethical research and action.

At the national level, survivors increasingly act as advocates, advisors and policymakers, shaping legislation, national action plans and training systems, and ensuring responses are trauma-informed and victim- and survivor-centred. The United States Advisory Council on Human Trafficking established in 2015 provided an important model for national-level engagement, and a range of States are now exploring possibilities for establishing survivor advisory infrastructure. Critically, in many contexts, survivors are informing the design of consultative infrastructure from the outset – a crucial development for ensuring mechanisms operate ethically and effectively.

Regionally and globally, survivors have gained visibility in international forums, including United Nations processes and partnerships such as Alliance 8.7, where they contribute to awareness-raising and policy discussions. The holding of the first global forum for human trafficking survivors in 2025 was identified as a critical moment in the formal integration of lived experience experts into global anti-trafficking strategy development.³⁴ The establishment by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) of the International Survivors of Trafficking Advisory Council represents an important shift in international anti-trafficking, providing a model for integration of lived experience expertise in multilateral forums. Across levels and sectors, formal advisory bodies facilitate professionalization of lived experience expertise, providing defined infrastructure for survivor voices to shape policy and programming.

34. See www.unodc.org/unodc/en/human-trafficking/Webstories2025/first-global-forum-for-human-trafficking-survivors--voices-of-resilience.html; www.unodc.org/unodc/news/2025/July/no-more-without-us_-survivors-call-for-role-in-anti-trafficking-efforts.html; and https://collectivethreads.org/document/unodc-forum-2025/. ↩

Despite growing recognition of the importance of survivor leadership within anti-slavery and anti-trafficking, significant engagement gaps persist. Participation is often constrained by structural barriers to access and concentrated among a relatively small group of survivors. Long-term, sustainable investments in capacity and infrastructure are increasing but remain limited, and such investments are often among the first cuts during periods of funding contraction. This exacerbates obstacles to engagement and access inequalities. At the same time, participation is frequently limited to consultation exercises, speaking engagements or advisory roles that provide visibility but little influence over priorities, resource allocation, programme design or policy outcomes. This can create an appearance of inclusivity without meaningfully shifting power or incorporating lived experience into substantive decisions. Such practices can lead to consultation fatigue, reinforce existing inequalities, undermine trust in engagement processes, raise concerns over tokenism or “survivor-washing”, and create real risk of harm. Greater efforts are therefore needed to ensure systematic, adequately resourced and genuinely participatory survivor leadership at all levels.

An ongoing shift towards a more human rights-based approach to slavery and trafficking has also been an important trend in recent years, although realization of this change remains incomplete and inconsistent. The human rights-based approach is manifest in improved mechanisms for protecting and supporting victims and survivors and increasingly survivor-centred and trauma-informed approaches. Formalized national referral mechanisms are increasingly becoming the norm for managing identification and support, with resources such as the OSCE handbook on national referral mechanisms providing important standards for consistent treatment across contexts.³⁶ The establishment of international funds that raise and disburse funding for protection and assistance programming also represents an important development in this regard.³⁷

36. Available at https://odihr.osce.org/odihr/NRM-handbook. ↩
37. Within the United Nations system, the United Nations voluntary trust fund on contemporary forms of slavery and the United Nations voluntary trust fund for victims of trafficking in persons, especially women and children; beyond the United Nations system, entities such as the Freedom Fund and the Global Fund to End Modern Slavery (which operated from 2017 to 2024). ↩

Increased recognition of the non-punishment principle has been important for delivering protection. Forced criminality has received greater attention in recent years, both as a previously under-recognized form of exploitation and as a practice considered to be rising globally. Forced criminal activity may be the primary form of exploitation experienced by someone subjected to slavery or trafficking or a byproduct or constituent element of exploitation. This may result in victims and survivors, who are entitled to assistance and support, instead facing criminalization, punishment and detention. Increasing codification of the non-punishment principle through domestic non-criminalization provisions and adoption or extension of vacatur laws has delivered important progress in protecting victims and survivors from punishment for acts committed as a result of slavery or trafficking. Yet, substantial gaps remain in implementation of the non-punishment principle. Many States have not yet enacted necessary legal frameworks to prevent criminalization of victims. At the same time, implementation in States that have protections in place is often inconsistent and incomplete.

Increasing attention on the intersectional nature of slavery and trafficking has been central to the evolution of the concepts and responses over the past century. Intersectionality highlights how overlapping and mutually reinforcing factors – such as gender, race, ethnicity, age, disability, migration status, poverty and displacement – shape vulnerability to slavery and trafficking.³⁹ The inclusion of commitments to eradicate forced labour, modern slavery and trafficking in persons within the Sustainable Development Goals reflects growing recognition that these violations are deeply interconnected with wider issues of inequality, exclusion, development and a broad range of human rights. As a result, there has been increased awareness that the root causes and structural drivers of exploitation need to be addressed, rather than applying solely a criminal justice-centred approach.

39. United Nations Network on Racial Discrimination and Protection of Minorities (2022), “Guidance Note on Intersectionality, Racial Discrimination and Protection of Minorities”, available at www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/issues/minorities/30th-anniversary/2022-09-22/GuidanceNoteonIntersectionality.pdf. ↩

The Special Rapporteur on trafficking in persons, especially women and children, consistently adopted an intersectional approach to show how overlapping forms of discrimination and inequality shape trafficking risks. Her thematic reports on climate change, displacement, terrorism, gender, peace and security, and the rights of persons with disabilities highlight those interlinkages.⁴⁰ Similarly, the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of slavery, including its causes and consequences, applied an intersectional labour-rights perspective to examine how poverty, precarious work, informality, migration status, displacement and discrimination contribute to forced labour and other forms of exploitation.⁴¹ More recent work by both mandate holders has expanded this analysis to include climate change, minority status, homelessness, deprivation of liberty, child labour, and sexual orientation and gender identity, underscoring the need for integrated, rights-based responses that address interconnected social, economic, political and environmental drivers of slavery and trafficking.

40. See A/79/161, A/77/170, A/73/171 and A/72/164. ↩
41. See A/HRC/60/28, A/HRC/57/46, A/HRC/54/30, A/HRC/51/26 and A/HRC/48/52. ↩

Despite these developments, there has been a persistent failure to effectively address the structural conditions underpinning exploitation,⁴² particularly when considering the issue at scale across contexts. Over the past 25 years, anti-trafficking and anti-slavery policy has evolved substantially through successive frameworks. Yet, this has often fallen short of translating into far-reaching contributions to overall prevalence reduction or significant improvements in the lives or working conditions of the world’s most vulnerable populations writ large. At the same time, prevention is often difficult to measure or evidence.

42. Molland (2026), “Twenty-five years on: anti-trafficking, shifting policy regimes and failure”, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 1–20. ↩

When interventions adopt narrow or restrictive approaches, they fail to respond to the interlinked systems that create vulnerability and enable perpetration, resulting in displacement or adaptation of exploitation and trafficking, rather than eradication. For instance, safe migration initiatives have sought to move beyond law enforcement approaches by promoting regular migration pathways, but often overlook structural inequalities, sometimes trapping migrants in restrictive and exploitative labour arrangements.⁴³ Similarly, anti-trafficking responses have too often prioritized criminal law enforcement, investigations, prosecutions and rescue-oriented interventions over the rights, agency, protection and long-term inclusion of trafficked persons.⁴⁴ Anti-slavery initiatives have focused attention on corporate supply chains and transparency measures in recent years, but without mandatory human rights due diligence, these approaches have often produced compliance-oriented reporting and audits with limited impact on the underlying drivers of exploitation.⁴⁵

43. Lumley-Sapanski and Schwarz (2024), “The impact of immigration policy on human trafficking and modern slavery: the state of the evidence”, available at https://www.nottingham.ac.uk/research/beacons-of-excellence/rights-lab/resources/reports-and-briefings/2024/october/the-impact-of-immigration-policy-on-human-trafficking-and-modern-slavery-the-state-of-evidence.pdf. ↩
44. See A/HRC/44/45. ↩
45. See A/73/163; LeBaron (2020), Combating Modern Slavery: Why Labour Governance Is Failing and What We Can Do About It. Polity. ↩

Moving forward, the Special Rapporteur takes the view that effective efforts to eradicate slavery and trafficking require increased emphasis on tackling the structural drivers of vulnerability. These efforts should be informed by an intersectional analysis of how factors such as gender and gender expression, race, ethnicity, disability, age, sexual orientation, migration status and socioeconomic disadvantage interact to increase vulnerability to exploitation.

Recognition of the role of the private sector in both perpetuating and combating slavery and trafficking, as well as the ways in which exploitation is rooted in global value chains, has been critical for progress in recent years. This has received substantial consideration from previous special rapporteurs on slavery and trafficking,⁴⁷ as well as dedicated and sustained attention through the Working Group on business and human rights.⁴⁸ Notably, in a landscape where many areas of anti-slavery and anti-trafficking are seen to be contracting, the push for increased responsibility for abuses within business operations and supply chains continues to gain traction.⁴⁹ This is most visible in the current wave of developing human rights due diligence legislation around the world, as well as the expansion of import and market restrictions on goods produced using forced labour.⁵⁰

47. See A/80/182, A/HRC/30/35, A/HRC/50/33, A/74/189, A/HRC/35/37, A/70/260 and A/67/261. ↩
48. See A/HRC/62/36, A/80/171, A/78/155, A/75/212, A/73/163 and A/71/291. ↩
49. OECD (2026), “Mapping social and environmental due diligence legislation”, available at www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2026/04/mapping-of-social-and-environmental-due-diligence-legislation_6cf2c241/bac11241-en.pdf; Business and Human Rights Centre (2026), “National and regional developments on mHRDD”, available at www.business-humanrights.org/en/big-issues/governing-business-human-rights/national-regional-developments-on-mhrdd/; Ethical Trading Initiative (2026), Human Rights Due Diligence legislation tracker, available at www.ethicaltrade.org/our-expertise/human-rights-due-diligence/human-rights-due-diligence-legislation-tracker. ↩
50. ILO (2026), Research Brief: The Potential of Import Bans to Address Forced Labour; Murphy (2026), Policy Brief: An International Blueprint for Forced Labor Import Bans; University of Nottingham Rights Lab (2025), Background Briefing: Import Restrictions; Gonzalez De Aguinaga (2025), “Effectiveness of forced labour import bans in addressing modern slavery in global supply chains”. ↩

Recognition that slavery and trafficking infuse global value chains has been critical to advances in this regard, informed for instance by the estimation that 86 per cent of global forced labour occurs in the private economy.⁵¹ Consumer-facing campaigns and global benchmarks have helped to reveal the nature and scale of abuses within various sectors and products, bringing attention to the importance of robust private sector responses. Sector-specific frameworks, initiatives and certification schemes have also expanded to respond to exploitation within high-risk sectors, such as cotton production, palm oil and extractive industries, as well as in previously overlooked sectors such as finance and investment.⁵²

51. See www.ilo.org/resource/news/50-million-people-worldwide-modern-slavery-0. ↩
52. For instance, the Finance Against Slavery and Trafficking initiative, now hosted by the United Nations Development Programme, mobilizes public and private financial actors, and the Equator Principles provide a baseline and risk management framework for environmental and social risks in financing projects. ↩

The adoption of the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, as well as regional initiatives such as the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises on Responsible Business Conduct, have provided a critical normative foundation for both State and private sector action to address human rights abuses in business operations and supply chains. This has translated into a wide range of domestic initiatives, including national action plans on business and human rights in a wide range of contexts (although domestication of business and human rights responsibilities is still far from the norm).⁵³ The adoption of a legally binding United Nations treaty on business and human rights would represent an important next step in the formalization of norms in this regard.

53. Danish Institute for Human Rights (2026), National Action Plans on Business and Human Rights, available at https://globalnaps.org/. ↩

For much of the past century, in many spaces, slavery had receded from public consciousness. Considered by many to have been consigned to history, slavery was often understood to have been legally abolished everywhere in the world and therefore to have effectively ceased to exist. Dominant narratives about trafficking oriented around the most severe cases of sexual exploitation likewise presented this as an exceptional and fringe issue, taking place at the margins of organized societies rather than being embedded and endemic. However, in more recent years, evolving understandings of the concepts of slavery and trafficking displaced these presumptions in legal, policy and programming responses. At the same time, public advocacy, popular media and research supported increased awareness of the persistence and dynamics of slavery and trafficking in the contemporary world.

Global, regional, national and local campaigning has increased knowledge about slavery and trafficking substantially. Awareness-raising activities have built understanding among the general public, as well as officials and other professionals operating within or connected to the anti-slavery and anti-trafficking field. These initiatives have brought attention to the issues, unearthed previously unknown or overlooked forms of exploitation, displaced myths and misconceptions, and reduced stigma for victims, survivors and vulnerable populations. Increased awareness has translated into concrete improvements in community mobilization, prevention, identification, prosecution, cooperation and protection. Strategic investments and advances in policy and programming by different stakeholders have also been precipitated by increased attention and understanding of the issue. Understanding the nature, scale and continued relevance of slavery and trafficking is critical to ensure prioritization of the issues and ongoing investment in eradication. Although awareness has unquestionably advanced in recent years, it remains uneven and incomplete and therefore requires further effort.

Anti-slavery and anti-trafficking actors have increasingly sought to ensure that their work is underpinned by robust data and evidence, particularly in recent years. This has been evident in growing emphasis on robust monitoring and evaluation, strategic investments in research, the rise of prevalence estimation, and the development of innovative methodologies for measuring and understanding slavery and trafficking. A focus on evidencing “what works” and understanding evidence gaps has also emerged, seeking to synthesize existing evidence, capitalize on lessons learned and minimize duplication.⁵⁶ Greater integration of survivors at all stages and levels of research has meaningfully transformed research and data, fostering critical advances in research design, delivery and dissemination. These advances in the science of anti-slavery and anti-trafficking are critical for scaling interventions to match the size and complexity of the problem, as well as adapting to diverging and evolving contexts. They have provided actionable insights to improve interventions and facilitate change.

56. For instance, the Delta 8.7 project and policy guides on what works to end modern slavery in contexts of crisis, justice, and markets, and ILO (2023) Forced Labour Evidence Gap Map, available at https://rtaproject.org/forced-labour-egm/. ↩

Despite rapid advances in evidence and data, substantial gaps remain. Infrastructure for systematically collecting, collating, analysing and sharing data has not yet been established in many contexts or demonstrates significant shortcomings. In some cases, government agencies were identified as actively hindering research by refusing official information requests, restricting sharing of data by contractors, and creating infrastructure that impeded specific research methodologies. Increasing disregard for data and evidence was also observed in some contexts, with intersecting policy contrary to established evidence being developed and adopted. Furthermore, organizational capacity to improve data systems and contribute to research is often limited, in large part due to insufficient (and often shrinking) resources and capacity among civil society and research organizations. Maintaining the trajectory of continuously improving data and evidence therefore requires revitalization of investment as well as sustained prioritization.

The past century of anti-slavery and anti-trafficking cemented landmark global, regional, national and local accomplishments. In recent decades in particular, critical strides have been made in efforts to combat human exploitation and trafficking. Yet, the current moment also presents unprecedented challenges for sustaining this positive trajectory. A convergence of structural, political and technological pressures poses grave challenges for efforts to eliminate slavery and trafficking. Restrictive migration policies, coupled with widening economic instability and inequality, continue to heighten vulnerability, pushing individuals into irregular pathways where exploitation risks are greater. At the same time, shrinking civic space and funding cuts constrain the ability of civil society actors – often at the forefront of prevention and victim support – to respond effectively. Growing use of digital technologies by traffickers further complicates the landscape, enabling more sophisticated, transnational, and less visible forms of exploitation. These dynamics are reinforced by the normalization of exploitative labour systems, particularly in low-wage and informal sectors, where abusive practices are often tolerated or overlooked.

The broader global economic model also presents a structural challenge. Prevailing production and consumption patterns prioritize low costs, rapid turnaround and high-volume output, creating sustained pressure for cheap labour across value chains. This dynamic often places downward pressure on wages and working conditions, incentivizing cost-cutting practices that can undermine labour standards and enable abusive forms of work. In highly competitive markets, businesses may engage – directly or indirectly – in a “race to the bottom”, where compliance with labour protections is weakened to maintain market share. Without robust regulation, effective enforcement and mandatory human rights due diligence, these dynamics risk normalizing exploitation as a by-product of efficiency and profitability, particularly in sectors reliant on outsourced, informal or precarious labour.

Capacity to address these threats is compounded by persistent systemic challenges. Interlocutors highlighted that responses remain fragmented and siloed, limiting coordination across sectors and borders, while a significant gap persists between legal frameworks and their implementation in practice. Efforts tend to be reactive, focusing on post-harm interventions rather than prevention and structural change. Weak labour protections and oversight mechanisms allow exploitation to flourish, particularly in informal or hidden sectors such as domestic work and sex work. Moreover, insufficient inclusion of survivors in policy and programme design undermines the relevance and effectiveness of interventions.

At the same time, exogenous shocks are destabilizing anti-slavery and anti-trafficking efforts. Exacerbating impacts of rising global instability and conflict drive large numbers of people into precarity and undermine response capacity, providing fertile ground for slavery and trafficking to thrive and threatening the efficacy of established responses. The consequences of climate change are fundamentally reshaping the scale, dynamics and geographies of risk, disrupting people’s livelihoods, driving displacement and producing situations of turmoil (for instance in the aftermath of natural disasters). At the same time, as many States prioritize investments in clean energy infrastructure, the human cost of transition – the people exploited to produce clean energy technologies – is often overlooked. These impacts are not felt equally, but are disproportionately experienced by the world’s most vulnerable populations.

Overall, these intersecting factors create a high-risk environment in which vulnerabilities are increasing faster than the capacity of systems to respond, underscoring the need for more integrated, preventive, rights-based and survivor-led approaches.

Over the past century, the global community has made substantial and undeniable progress in the fight against slavery and trafficking. What was once tolerated or even legally sanctioned in many parts of the world is now universally condemned. A cornerstone of this progress has been recognition that the prohibition of slavery constitutes a jus cogens norm – an overriding principle of international law binding on all States without exception. This legal consensus has been reinforced through the near-universal ratification of key international instruments and steady evolution of domestic legal frameworks embedding the prohibition of slavery and trafficking within national legal orders. Alongside these legal developments, a broad moral consensus has also emerged: slavery and trafficking are now widely denounced in political discourse and public consciousness across diverse societies.

Yet, progress is uneven and incomplete. While some States have established robust legal and institutional frameworks to prevent, prosecute and remedy exploitation, others lag behind in adoption, implementation and enforcement. Disparities also persist within national borders, where marginalized communities – often defined by poverty, discrimination, migration status, gender or other forms of marginalization – remain disproportionately vulnerable to exploitation. Moreover, progress across different regions and population groups has been inconsistent, reflecting broader inequalities in governance, resources and access to justice. As a result, millions of people worldwide continue to experience conditions of contemporary forms of slavery and trafficking in persons.

Today, a rising tide of interconnected global challenges threatens to undermine hard-won gains. Climate change is exacerbating displacement and economic insecurity, thereby increasing vulnerability to exploitation. Conflict and instability continue to create environments in which trafficking and slavery flourish with impunity. At the same time, widening inequalities are leaving more individuals at risk, while shrinking civic space in some contexts is constraining the ability of civil society actors, human rights defenders and survivors to advocate for accountability and reform. These pressures, taken together, risk eroding the maintenance and effectiveness of existing protections and the political will necessary to advance them.

We are at a critical turning point in the fight against contemporary forms of slavery and trafficking in persons. The trajectory of progress cannot be taken for granted; it must be strengthened. Much more needs to be done to end these practices once and for all. This moment calls for renewed commitment by States, institutions and societies to resist regressive measures, uphold international obligations and invest in inclusive, rights-based, survivor-led responses that address root causes. Only through sustained and collective action can a world free from slavery and trafficking be realized and preserved for future generations.

On the centenary of the Slavery Convention, the Special Rapporteur recommends that States reaffirm and renew their commitment to the complete eradication of all contemporary forms of slavery and trafficking in persons, including by:
(a) Ratifying the international conventions to which they are not yet Party, including the:
(i) 94 States not yet Party to the 1926 Slavery Convention, as amended by the 1953 Protocol thereto;
(ii) 70 States not yet Party to the 1956 Supplementary Convention on the Abolition of Slavery, the Slave Trade, and Institutions and Practices Similar to Slavery;
(iii) 19 States not yet Party to the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights;
(iv) 13 States not yet Party to the 1930 Forced Labour Convention and 128 States not yet Party to its 2014 Protocol;
(v) 18 States not yet Party to the 1957 Abolition of Forced Labour Convention;
(vi) 70 States not yet Party to the 1998 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court;
(vii) 7 States not yet Party to the 1999 Worst Forms of Child Labour Convention;
(b) Ensuring comprehensive legal protection by incorporating clear and explicit prohibitions on slavery, servitude, institutions and practices similar to slavery, forced labour, the worst forms of child labour and trafficking in persons into domestic legislation, consistent with international standards;
(c) Developing robust regulation of slavery and trafficking risks and abuses in public and private value chains, including mandatory human rights due diligence legislation;
(d) Closing the implementation gap by adequately resourcing labour inspectorates, law enforcement, judicial institutions, victim support services and survivor-led initiatives to ensure effective prevention, protection, accountability and remedies;
(e) Addressing root causes and strengthening prevention through investments in social protection, education, decent work, poverty reduction, gender equality and community-based initiatives, while integrating anti-slavery and anti-trafficking measures into migration, development, climate adaptation, humanitarian and recovery policies;
(f) Advancing labour rights and safe migration by expanding safe and regular migration pathways, regulating labour recruitment, eliminating worker-paid recruitment fees, strengthening protections for migrant workers, domestic workers and workers in the informal economy, and ensuring equal labour rights for all workers;
(g) Promoting freedom of association and collective bargaining, guaranteeing the rights of workers (including migrant workers) to organize, join trade unions and engage in collective bargaining across borders, eliminating tied-visa systems that restrict labour mobility, and strengthening the role of workers’ organizations and trade unions in migration governance, bilateral labour agreements, trade frameworks and supply chain oversight;
(h) Addressing heightened risks in conflict and humanitarian contexts by mainstreaming anti-slavery and anti-trafficking measures into conflict prevention, peacebuilding, humanitarian response and displacement programmes, with particular attention to children, refugees, migrants, internally displaced persons and other populations at increased risk;
(i) Strengthening accountability, evidence and monitoring by developing national systems to assess prevalence, risk, and vulnerability, improving data collection, analysis and transparency, and ensuring that all data-gathering efforts respect privacy, human rights and data protection standards;
(j) Adopting survivor-centred and rights-based responses and ensuring access to justice, compensation, legal aid, long-term recovery and reintegration services, and protection from punishment for unlawful acts committed as a consequence of exploitation;
(k) Institutionalizing meaningful survivor participation in policy development, implementation, monitoring and evaluation.

The Special Rapporteur recommends that United Nations entities and international organizations continue to advance progress in the fight against slavery and trafficking, including by:
(a) Strengthening coordination to mainstream anti-slavery and anti-‍trafficking action across human rights, labour, criminal justice, development, trade, investment, health, environment, minority rights, migration, humanitarian, security and peacebuilding frameworks;
(b) Promoting accountability for State and corporate failures to prevent exploitation;
(c) Facilitating the participation of grass-roots and survivor-led organizations in global processes;
(d) Establishing sustainable infrastructure for meaningful survivor engagement within organizations.

The Special Rapporteur recommends that businesses and investors move beyond compliance to deliver accountability and meaningful action to address harmful business practices, including by:
(a) Implementing robust human rights due diligence across operations, supply chains and business relationships;
(b) Identifying, preventing, mitigating and remedying slavery, trafficking and related risks;
(c) Ensuring responsible recruitment and prohibiting recruitment fees and debt-linked labour arrangements;
(d) Strengthening workers’ voices by supporting freedom of association, collective bargaining and worker-driven social responsibility models;
(e) Establishing safe and accessible grievance mechanisms for people affected by human rights risks connected to business operations and supply chains;.
(f) Reporting publicly on identified risks and remediation measures;
(g) Ensuring access to effective remedy for workers and affected communities who experience business-related human rights harms;
(h) Investing in technology responsibly, using technology to improve supply chain visibility and risk detection, and conducting human rights assessments of artificial intelligence and other technologies to prevent misuse and discrimination.

The Special Rapporteur recommends that civil society organizations and trade unions continue to drive the trajectory of change and maintain progress, including by:
(a) Strengthening community-based prevention and locally led initiatives that address vulnerability, social exclusion and exploitation, and embedding early warning and referral systems in at-risk communities;
(b) Building cross-sector coalitions, through collaborations with trade unions, worker organizations, businesses, researchers, affected communities and stakeholders working in intersecting fields;
(c) Expanding public awareness and promoting evidence-based campaigns focused on prevention and structural drivers;
(d) Advocating for increased accountability of States, businesses and individuals, including by monitoring the implementation of laws and policies;
(e) Advocating for labour rights, safe migration pathways and victim- and survivor-centred approaches underpinned by robust evidence and data.

The Special Rapporteur also recommends that:
(a) Trade unions and worker organizations expand outreach to migrant, informal and precarious workers, support worker-organizing initiatives in high-risk sectors, and strengthen monitoring of recruitment practices and working conditions;
(b) Academic and research institutions continue to advance evidence on prevalence, risk factors, prevention and effective interventions, advance interdisciplinary and intersectional research, and support participatory research engaging and led by survivors and affected communities;
(c) Technology companies and digital platforms strengthen safeguards against online recruitment fraud, exploitation and trafficking, collaborate with human rights experts and survivors in product design and risk mitigation, and increase transparency, monitoring and reporting of risks and abuses;
(d) Philanthropic organizations and donors provide flexible, multi-year funding, prioritize survivor-led, grass-roots and community-based organizations, and support research, innovation, prevention and systems-change approaches, rather than short-term projects alone.

For all stakeholders engaged in anti-slavery and anti-trafficking activities or connected to the field, the Special Rapporteur further recommends taking the occasion of the 100th anniversary of the Slavery Convention as an inflection point for embedding and promoting meaningful survivor engagement and leadership for the next century of the fight against slavery and trafficking.