Modern slavery perception and its effect on brand trust: the roles of customer satisfaction, product price and quality Open Access

Brand trust is a continuous concern for academics and practitioners. Studies have explicitly and implicitly emphasized the pivotal role of brand trust in organisations (Bhandari and Rodgers, 2018; Hanaysha, 2022; Azhar et al., 2023; Armawan et al., 2023). That said, studies that examine models to explain brand trust are minimal (Mal et al., 2018), and there is a need for more predictive studies on brand trust (Wongsansukcharoen, 2022; Sohaib and Han, 2023; Lefkeli et al., 2024). In the contemporary business world, there is a desire to push beyond the regular threshold measurements of a good product. Nowadays, consumers are more aware and interested in information (environmental pollution and modern slavery information) that traditionally did not matter in influencing customers’ trust in a brand (Han et al., 2024). This has reshaped what company executives call important.

Since the start of the 21st century, the focus has been on supply chain modern slavery (Stringer et al., 2016), and management practitioners and researchers have been keen on the labour aspect of supply chain modern slavery (Stevenson and Cole, 2018; Benstead et al., 2018; Alzoubi et al., 2023; Han et al., 2024). Modern slavery is a major discussion in humanities studies (Christ and Burritt, 2018), and it is touted as the most comprehensive and expansive organised crime of the 21st century (Crane, 2013) due to its global spread (Han et al., 2024). Slave labour is mostly found along the supply chains of manufacturing firms, hence, the concept of supply chain modern slavery. Supply chain modern slavery is predominant in the non-technological aspect of the supply chain across a large range of industries, including garment and textile, fisheries, cocoa, and jewellery, among others (Bales and Trodd, 2013; Sokat and Altay, 2023). Due to a paucity of studies that empirically test a model of brand trust, involving modern slavery or its perception as a predictor, this study plots itself into the literature gap to empirically test the effect of modern slavery perception on customer satisfaction and brand trust. The study intends to provide empirical data to manufacturers on the possible effect of modern slavery perception.

The resource-based view (RBV) theory is a relevant management theory because of its relevance to several concepts and how they are tethered to other concepts in management. At the core of the theory, it posits that a firm is a function of its resources (Barney, 1991). Irrespective of how well a firm identifies opportunities, its resources determine if the opportunity can be exploited or vice versa (Wernerfelt, 1984). First mentioned in 1984 by Birger Wernefelt, the RBV theory advices that firms must create a unique competence that will deliver a competitive advantage. A competitive advantage is conferred the adjective of sustainable when several efforts to replicate it have failed (Rumelt, 1984).

The RBV theory is relevant to this study because in the world of resources, having a favourable perception, good product quality and competitive price are all resources that aid a firm in unlocking potential opportunities and achieving different outcomes, including brand trust. The theory directly supports MSP, product quality and price, and brand trust dynamics, as it emphasizes that having the right resources like product quality and price can help influence customer satisfaction and brand trust. This implies that any organisation that its customers believe is concerned about the welfare of its supply chain employees and strives to remove modern slavery from its supply chain will gain an intangible resource which can metamorphose into brand trust.

Another theory relevant to this study is the system theory. This theory was introduced into management literature by Kenneth Boulding in 1956 (Boulding, 1956). The theory establishes that every firm must conduct its analysis of activities and performance in a wider spectrum, factoring in the external environment activities (Mele et al., 2010). Aristotle, being the founding father of this chain of thought, opines that the effect and impact of coming together can never be equal to doing things exclusively (Bertalanffy, 1972). This highlights that system theory can be internalised as well as applied from the external view of the firm. The complexities in relationships, both on the internal front between departments and among firms, are best explained from the holistic view, and this is where system theory slots (Cordon, 2013).

The system theory is appropriate because it emphasizes understanding activities outside the direct control of the firm that can affect the firm positively or adversely. Modern slavery in supply chains is practically beyond the focal firm’s operational functions, yet, it could harm the organisation negatively through supporting negative perceptions. The theory directly tethers the relationship between modern slavery perception and brand trust as well as customer satisfaction. Emphasizing how activities outside the firm can affect direct performance outcomes of the firm. It highlights how the relationship between a firm and seemingly unrelated employees of firms in its supply chain down the line can affect the way customers see the firm and the brand in total. The system theory helps the researcher connect the dots among all concepts used in this study, as it highlights how the satisfaction a customer experiences may be tilted towards the positive or negative, depending on the reports on how the firm responds to modern slavery. And how that satisfaction, or its absence, will affect the trust in such brands.

Modern slavery can be broadly divided into two sections, that is, trafficking and sexual exploitation, and labour exploitation (Jiang et al., 2023; Shankley, 2023; Yu et al., 2025). That said, this study focuses on the labour aspect of modern slavery in supply chains, usually referred to as supply chain modern slavery. Gold et al. (2015) define supply chain modern slavery as the exploitation of employee(s) through deprivation of their basic liberty anywhere across the supply chain between the raw material stages to the consumer stage. This study describes supply chain modern slavery as a condition where a worker along the supply chain of a firm is deprived of any control over their decision towards work.

In 2018, 40.3 million persons were modern slaves, and 61.7% were enshrined in labour-related slavery (Global Slavery Index, 2018). This highlights the extent of issues in labour slavery across supply chains, as well as propel a corresponding interest of researches within the labour facet of modern slavery (Crane, 2013; Gold et al., 2015; New, 2015; Christ and Burritt, 2018; Benstead et al., 2021; Jiang et al., 2023; Yu et al., 2025).

Modern slavery as a management strategy is tailored towards reducing the wages paid to employees or labour (LeBaron, 2015) and unfortunately, some of these practices have been institutionalised (Sokat and Altay, 2023; Hobbs, 2024; Olayiwola, 2024). Seemingly, modern slavery in supply chains is overlooked by the multi-national focal manufacturing firms because of capitalism (Stringer et al., 2016; Stringer and Michailova, 2018; De Vries, 2019; Boersma and Nolan, 2022). While there is an obvious effort of focal firms to minimise modern slavery (Sokat and Altay, 2023), multi-national firms cannot be left to tackle this menace, being the beneficiaries. It will require pressure from other stakeholders. That brings the question of how much interest customers have in all this. Does modern slavery activity even influence their opinion of brands at all? Especially if the firms in question are providing customers with products at the quality they want, and at the price they want.

It is said that the first thing considered in the hearts of customers is the price (Stevenson, 2015). Price is a major determinant and continues to remain an attraction (or vice-versa) to products around the world (Liu et al., 2022). It is described as the value a manufacturer or service provider places as the exchange for its product/service (Kotler and Armstrong, 2005; Belch and Belch, 2005) and is also seen as the amount in monetary terms that must be forgone to obtain a product (Foster, 2016). The customer perception of the price and its fairness to the value of the product is crucial for customers to develop purchase intentions (Razak et al., 2016; Khowjoy et al., 2023). That said, a scenario to be tested is if the price is right for the customer and modern slavery activities are found in the supply chain of the producer, how would the customer react? Bearing in mind that the tendency of the raw materials to be free of modern slavery is low. Will this information affect the trust in the brand?

The quality of products is always under scrutiny, especially from customers and government agencies. The unexpected rise in product recalls globally (Consumer Product Safety Commission, 2010) is also a testament to the fact that many products have fallen short of quality standards. Though the mainstream news focuses on big brands and market leaders, product quality dip is evident across multi-nationals and local firms. While product quality may vary in definition among scholars and individuals (De Giovanni and Zaccour, 2023), it is largely agreed that it should be described from the customer’s perspective (Zeithaml, 1988). Therefore, for this study, product quality will be seen as the alignment of product performance with customer product expectations (Stevenson, 2015). Being a major consideration for customers (Stevenson, 2002), it is only logical to agree with Lekhanya and Dlamini (2017) that product quality may have the capacity to influence customer perception of a brand. That said, it is important to understand how product quality interacts with other strong perceptions (Rai et al., 2023), as in this case, modern slavery perceptions that customers may experience in these contemporary times of endless information.

For the business, the need to satisfy customers is non-negotiable. It is the implementation of the philosophy that the customer is king; therefore, managing their pleasure with the organisation’s product equates to matching value to the expectations of customers (Nobar and Rostamzadeh, 2018). It is a post-consumption evaluation by the consumer that measures performance with expectations (Giese and Cote, 2000; Udofia, 2019). There are several needs for understanding customer satisfaction and its influencers. It is easy to evaluate the financial performance of the firm, but it is not easy to evaluate the satisfaction levels of the customers. This is why extra effort is required to understand and maintain the satisfactory levels of the customers. Customer satisfaction serves as an established non-financial measurement of firm performance and the basis for the firm’s perception, goodwill and brand power (Wikhamn, 2019). Though it is a highly subjective process because it anchors on several individual parameters and preferences (Udofia et al., 2021), it remains a major target for organisations as they compete for market share growth and or customer loyalty. Literature posits that customer satisfaction is essential to the firm because it has the potential to drive loyalty (Shirmer et al., 2018).

Identification of a product or service has led to distinguishing the producing firm. The achievement of favourable brand perception is a must-have for organisations, and all strategies applicable to delivering this goal are always considered. Brand trust can be described as a scenario where the end user is confident of the product’s reliability and performance (Morgan and Hunt, 1994). The critical position of a brand name and its capacity to influence customer evaluation cannot be overemphasised in the era of maximum information dissemination. The power of a brand precedes product quality in some cases and can confer a resource pivotal to competitive advantage (Zboja and Voorhees, 2006). Brand trust is much talked about; however, it is bewildering that its literature is still in its infancy in comparison to other research concerns in the field of operations management and marketing (Delgado-Ballester and Munuera-Aleman, 2005).

Most transactions are evidence of a level of brand trust (Hosseini and Behboudi, 2017) because the level of trust customers have in a brand is reflected in their belief in the product quality and reliability (Chih-Chung et al., 2012). Brand trust is so important; it proves relevant for online and offline businesses (Hahn and Kim, 2009), this is because it serves as a critical ingredient for attaining loyalty from customers toward the brand (Matzler et al., 2008). In consumer behaviour literature, some studies support the notion that brand trust pacifies the uncertainties associated with the brand’s product (Chaudhuri and Holbrook, 2001; Power et al., 2008). This stems from literature that says that risk and uncertainties are reduced by maintaining a credible product quality (Erdem et al., 2006). Brand trust will remain an important concept in business circles because of its numerous advantages and companies will continually strive to attain it. Literature posits that measurement constructs of brand trust are in debate (Ruparelia et al., 2010); that said, this study adapts brand trust measurements from the study of Power et al. (2008) and Hegner and Jevons (2016). They are predictable in a brand’s product quality, trust in the organisation’s competence, the benevolence of the brand, and trust in the organisation’s integrity.

There is a growing interest in contemporary literature on brand perception, how they are perceived and the possible impact of these perceptions on the firm (Wei et al., 2017; Kapoor and Banerjee, 2021; Gabriella et al., 2021; Tong et al., 2023). The impact of negative brand publicity is a growing research interest and it is very broad (Liu et al., 2018; Yu et al., 2019). This study particularly tests an aspect of negative brand publicity that is rarely tested. That is, supply chain modern slavery news and perception of the customer on brand trust. According to Mal et al. (2018), there are minimal empirical studies that test a model on brand trust, making it imperative that models on brand trust be tested empirically. In addition, researches on the subject of brand trust are mostly domiciled in business environments that are not Western African (Thaler et al., 2018; Tong et al., 2023). This suggests the need for a study on brand trust in West African countries, e.g. the Nigerian business environment. This study intends to fill that gap.

A comprehensive literature review on managing how brands are perceived and consumer reaction posits that there is a paucity of studies in this area (Kapoor and Banerjee, 2021). A study by Li and Sun (2022) is among the very few sustainability scandal-related studies on brand trust. It established that the environmental sustainability crisis hurt brand trust and called for more studies to examine other facets of sustainability. This study examines the social sustainability aspects of the firm and how they relate to brand trust. In multidisciplinary research of operations management and marketing, customer satisfaction as a dependent variable has been empirically tested by several predictors including sustainable practices, total quality management, service failure and recovery, product innovation, and product quality (Hess et al., 2003; Tsiotsou, 2006; Udofia, 2019; Wikhamn, 2019), however, there is no study that tests if modern slavery perception can predict customer satisfaction. This stems from interviews reported by Mal et al. (2018), where even in cases where the company engages in outsourcing, customers expect that the employees of the partners are the concern of the focal firm. In other words, cases of modern slavery and the like should not be seen within the supply chain of a focal firm (Benstead et al., 2018), as this could affect customer perception of the brand, not to mention heavy fines by the government. If negative news of how a focal firm approaches maltreatment of employees of supply chain partner(s) breaks, does it affect customer satisfaction, and/or the trust in such a brand? According to Sokat and Altay (2023), allegations of modern slavery negatively impact performance operationally. Thus, it is expected that brand trust should be affected negatively before it is reflected in firms’ performance outcomes. Based on this discussion, the researcher tests if modern slavery perception by customers can affect customer satisfaction and brand trust.

According to Stevenson (2002), price and quality tops every customer’s concern. Though the study of Mal et al. (2018) highlights the role of product price and product review generally to brand trust and customer purchase intentions, as well as reiterates that price and product quality are top concerns for customers. The literature gap however becomes apparent when confronted with the information on how these companies treat issues of their partner firms, specifically, employees of supply chain members, and how this information processing affects the satisfaction of customers. That is, irrespective of prior knowledge of top-notch product quality (being the first concern). For instance, if a customer of the focal firm in the United Kingdom, whose needs are well cared for, finds out about modern slavery, specifically, child labour in an African developing nation manufacturing partner, does it moderate the impact of how the customer feels toward the product? Does such information reduce the satisfaction derived from the product. There is a need for empirical quantitative studies into this relationship.

Han et al. (2024) emphasized that a large portion of firms do not comply with slavery acts in their countries, and they are not penalised. Thus, consumers must lead the fight against slavery if there would be any. The study also called for future studies to focus on factors that would make consumers reluctant towards calling out businesses found guilty, e.g. product quality and price. Boersma and Nolan (2022) and Shankley (2023) argued that poverty has a way of eroding one’s ability to question certain activities. This was echoed by Hobbs (2024) who alluded that the poor only think of survival and could not afford the luxury of caring about supply chain modern slaves, which they were themselves. Thus, the price/affordability of the product comes first, nothing else comes in second to the poor (Shankley, 2023; Hobbs, 2024; Olayiwola, 2024). This begs the question of how much influence price and quality have on reactions to brand transgressions. Aw and Labrecque (2023) already established in their research that the celebrity power of endorsed celebrities moderates the negative responses of customers to brand unethical practices. The study however encouraged more studies to test if other factors like product quality and price can moderate customer response to brand unethical practices like modern slavery. Contemporary literature supports the need for future studies to investigate the role of quality and price in modern slavery allegations (Olayiwola, 2024; Hobbs, 2024), citing the lack of outrage at some modern slavery whistle blowing cases that had become public knowledge (Olayiwola, 2024; Hobbs, 2024), they argue that it is possible that having the right price may moderate customer reaction to it, and inevitably brant trust.

Stringer et al. (2022) called for more studies into how pricing influences the backlash firms involved in modern slavery should get. They allude to the seemingly acceptance of modern slavery by consumers, provided it will result in the lowest prices for them. Thus, there is a need to investigate the moderating capacity of price in the relationship between modern slavery and brand trust. Relatedly, Hayran and Ceylan (2023) investigated how negative brand action information affected brand trust. The study affirmed that negative brand action significantly and negatively affected brand trust, especially in cases where the product quality was compromised. In other words, the product was the major consideration for how consumers reacted to trust in the brand. It is possible if the product upheld expected quality and performance, brand trust would be less likely reduced. The study encouraged more studies into understanding these dynamics. In a related study, Khowjoy et al. (2023) tested value (seen as product characteristics) on satisfaction and trust, and found both to be positive and significant. Building on that, this study is testing product characteristics as a moderator on satisfaction and trust with modern slavery perception as the independent variable. From the Nigerian front, Nigeria is one of the countries with the most estimated modern slaves in supply chains (Global Slavery Index, 2023), and synthesizing these scholarly works, the researchers are driven to query into how price and quality matters in a largely poor country like Nigeria. Specifically, the study seeks to investigate if product price and or quality can moderate the relationship between MSP and customer satisfaction. As well as the role of product price and quality in the MSP/brand trust interaction. In addition, the indirect relationship between modern slavery perception and brand trust has not been empirically tested in prior literature Han et al. (2024). Also emphasized by Han et al. (2024) is the possible negative response from customers when they perceive unethical practices by firms lack evidence in the literature because it is untested empirically in Sub-Saharan African business environments. Existing literature has driven the researchers to formulate the following hypotheses:

All the hypotheses of the study are incorporated into the conceptual model (Figure 1).

The study adopts a descriptive research design, specifically, the cross-sectional survey approach. Population is infinite; made up of consumers of the top products that have modern slavery in their supply chains (electronics, garment/apparel, palm oil, fish and sugarcane), as reported in the Global Slavery Index (2018, 2023). To derive the appropriate sample size for an infinite population size and an unknown population proportion, the Cochran (1977) sample size determination was employed to derive 384 respondents as the minimum appropriate sample size. A selection criterion was employed in isolating respondents to only online shoppers on a shopping website. In the rationale of the researchers, this approach helped in accurately selecting respondents who were actual customers of the products in focus. The sampling technique was convenience sampling and it is a technique best implemented when random sampling may not be suited. It allowed the researcher to survey respondents who are willing and available for participation in the study.

The approach to respondents' selection was done similarly to prior studies in corporate brand trust, e.g. Ho (2014), and Chen and Cheng (2020). The service of a highly trafficked online selling platform was contracted to help distribute the online survey to customers who patronised products of interest to this study. This was done in anticipation of their assured 99% accuracy in selecting customers from the purchase pattern online. After a 7-month contract period (February 2024–August 2024), 643 customers were surveyed to fill out the questionnaire and all responses were fit for use and considered in the analysis.

The research instrument for the study was a structured questionnaire that measured modern slavery perception (New, 2015; Christ and Burritt, 2018), customer satisfaction (Lee et al., 2017; Chavez et al., 2016), product quality (Kianpour et al., 2014) product price (Herrmann et al., 2007) and brand trust (Delgado-Ballester, 2004). A total of 25 items, 5 items per variable, were incorporated into the research instrument. See Table 1 for further breakdown of the research instrument. Validation conducted on the research instrument was content validation, done by two industry experts with a speciality in supply chain and marketing. Reliability was conducted with the Cronbach Alpha test, and all variables were above the required threshold, thus, a reliable instrument. Analysis of the data was done with the use of the Amos–Structural Equation Model version 23.

The measurement model was assessed by conducting a series of tests. The multivariate normality, multicollinearity, unidimensionality, positive definiteness, and confirmatory factor analysis. The Malhalanobis range for the data set was 5.460 and 107.846, and the critical value was 86.66. Thus, a deselection of two responses with Malhalanobis greater than 86.88 was done. Multicollinearity was assessed by the Tolerance and Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) values. It was appropriate because the tolerance values were above 0.2 and VIF values were below 5. The reliability of the data set was tested according to variables and the model fit was assessed. Results show that reliability and model fit for each variable were good, as displayed in Table 2. That is, reliability scores, using the Cronbach Alpha test, were all above 0.70 and observed model fit indices were above 0.900. Model fit indices used were the normed fit index (NFI), the goodness of fit (GFI), and the comparative fit index (CFI). In addition to these, the root mean square residual (RMR), composite reliability (CR) and average variance extracted (AVE) were also used in assessing the model fit for the constructs, and all were within range. RMR values below 0.08 and AVE and CR values above 0.5 and 0.7 respectively, are adequate (Hair et al., 1998).

Positive definiteness was tested by running a factor analysis with consideration for matching factors to extract and the number of variables, being 6. The rotation was set as varimax and suppression of coefficients less than 0.30. The determinant value was 3.330, the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) value was 0.855, and Bartlett’s test of sphericity (BTS) significance was 0.000. A determinant value above 0, and a significant KMO value above 0.5 is appropriate (Hair et al., 1998; Lowry and Gaskin, 2014). Discriminant validity was tested by comparing the squared correlation values of the variables against the square roots AVE values, and Table 3 reveals that no squared corelation was above the square root AVE values for the variable.

The online survey was contracted to an online platform with a duration of 25 weeks. At the end of the contractual duration, the survey had 643 responses, and all were useable because the survey was designed to mandate a response to a statement before proceeding to the next, in addition, each statement could only accept one option. Thus, eliminating unusable forms. The distribution of the respondents’ bio-data is reported below. Table 4 shows a detailed breakdown of the bio-data of the respondents.

The results of all hypotheses tested in the study are reported and displayed in Table 5 and Figure 2 respectively.

Hypothesis 1 investigated how modern slavery perception has a significant effect on customer satisfaction. The result showed that modern slavery perception had a direct and positive effect on customer satisfaction. This is revealed in the coefficient (β) of 0.447, t-value of 5.472 and p-value of 000. Hypothesis 2 tested the direct effect of modern slavery perception on brand trust. Findings revealed that the effect was negative and insignificant (β = 0.019, p-value = 0.792, t-value = −0.263).

Hypothesis 3 tested the product price moderating effect on the relationship between modern slavery perception and customer satisfaction. The result showed that product price did not mediate the relationship significantly (β = 0.003, p = 0.973, t = −0.234). In addition, a slope analysis was conducted. The slope revealed that there was very minimal (or no) influence on the steepness of the slope either at high or low moderation levels, see Figure 3.

Hypothesis 4 investigated the product price moderating capacity on the relationship between modern slavery perception and brand trust. The result (β = 0.194, p = 0.002, t = 3.070) highlights that the effect was positive and significant. A simple slope analysis also revealed that the direction of the slope was strengthened positively as the price changed from low to high, thus, corroborating that the price moderates the relationship between modern slavery perception and brand trust, see Figure 4.

Hypothesis 5 tested product quality’s moderating capacity between modern slavery perception and customer satisfaction. Results (β = −0.015, p = 0.817, t = −0.231) highlighted that though there is a negative moderation on the relationship, the moderation is insignificant. The simple slope analysis showed that the relationship between modern slavery perception and customer satisfaction weakened as product quality increased to high product quality, see Figure 5.

Hypothesis 6 tested product quality as a moderator on the modern slavery perception and brand trust relationship. The test proved that the product quality as a moderator strengthened the relationship between modern slavery perception and brand trust; however, it was insignificant (β = 0.127, p = 0.070, t = 1.812). The simple slope equally depicted the increase in interaction between modern slavery perception and brand trust when product quality became high, see Figure 6.

Hypothesis 7 tested the mediation capacity of customer satisfaction on modern slavery perception and brand trust. The results established a significant positive indirect effect of modern slavery perception on brand trust (β = 0.134, LLCI = 0.052, ULCI = 0.337, p = 0.002, t = 2.696). The results also showed that in the presence of the mediating variable (customer satisfaction), modern slavery perception maintained an insignificant direct effect on brand trust (β = −0.019, p = 0.792, t = −0.263). Therefore, in addition to being a significant mediation, the mediation by customer satisfaction was full.

The study investigates the effect of modern slavery perception on brand trust and modern slavery perception’s indirect effect on brand trust through customer satisfaction. The study also examined the moderating roles of product price and quality on the relationships. Findings revealed that MSP had a direct and positive effect on CS. This is in contrast to the expectations of the researcher because MSP is expected to trigger some sort of backlash from customers (Han et al., 2024). It is also noteworthy that a country’s citizenry in much poverty may not care about MSP (Shankley, 2023; Hobbs, 2024), provided they can feed themselves and their families. For the poor, it is all about survival, nothing else really matters (Boersma and Nolan, 2022; Olayiwola, 2024). MSP had a negative and insignificant direct impact on brand trust. Though this study’s result is insignificant, in some ways, this supports the findings of Sokat and Altay (2023), who found a negative significant effect on operational performance from modern slavery allegations. It is expected that such allegations may sway public opinion negatively and there will be a reduction in brand trust which may trigger a reduction in all performance parameters. The findings also align with Beldad et al. (2018), who found that negative information about a company adversely affects brand trust. The findings also support the result of Bae et al. (2023), whose study found that ensuring social sustainability is not compromised will affect brand trust positively. In other words, when social sustainability, which includes modern slavery, is compromised, the firm will lose brand trust.

Results revealed that product price did not moderate the relationship between MSP and CS. However, product price positively moderated the relationship between MSP and BT. Product price moderating and strengthening the relations between MSP and brand trust echoes Guilbert’s survey (2015). Where it was found that customers were willing to pay more, provided it would aid the stop of modern slavery. Thus, it is possible that when products are pricy, customers automatically assume it is the lack of modern slavery in the supply chain of that product. Thereby countering negative opinions of the brand that were previously held by the customer. Product quality neither moderated MSP and CS, nor MSP and BT relationships. Finally, CS fully, positively and significantly mediated the relationship between MSP and BT. This corroborates the findings of Kapoor and Banerjee (2020) that highlight the power of customer experiences before a piece of negative information. Kapoor and Banerjee (2020) emphasized that customer satisfaction from prior experiences prevents customers from totally cancelling a brand (if at all) in the face of negative information like unethical practices.

The study created the model of MSP, CS, PP, PQ and BT to empirically test how these variables interact with each other. The study uniquely contributes to the literature on sustainability through social sustainability concerns on modern slavery. In response to calls from sun (2022) who examined environmental sustainability concerns on brand trust, as well as Kapoor and Banerjee (2021) and Tong et al. (2023) who called for investigation on perceptions and brand trust from developing nations; particularly west African, the study provides novel insight into modern slavery perception and brand trust, directly and indirectly. Sokat and Altay (2023) studied modern slavery news and operational performance, and charged further studies into how modern slavery news can trigger consumer reaction. This study responds, and proved that MSP had no significant direct impact on brand trust, however, it does indirectly, through CS. The study also enriches the literature by considering the presence of specific favourable conditions of price and quality (being foremost consumer considerations) in the dynamics, and observed the reactions. In response to contemporary calls (Aw and Labrecque, 2023; Shankley, 2023; Han et al., 2024; Hobbs, 2024) into unravelling panaceas that moderate customer reactions to brand scandals, the study established that product quality did not moderate the relationship between MSP and CS as well as MSP and BT. Product price also did not moderate the relationship between MSP and CS; however, just like Aw and Labrecque (2023), who found that celebrity power moderates customer trust after firm sustainability scandals, this study finds that product price moderated the relationship between MSP and BT in favour of brand trust. It affirms stringer et al. (2022) notion of customers just want it as cheap as possible. It also supports the call by Khowjoy et al. (2023), who concluded that product characteristics are a deciding factor for brand trust (in a direct effect), and suggested testing product characteristics as moderators in influencing brand trust. We all know modern slavery exists; the pertinent question is why it persists (Alzoubi et al., 2023; Shankley, 2023; Han et al., 2024). This study contributes to the literature on understanding the persistence of modern slavery despite so many policies against it. It establishes that the expected backlash that should deter organisations from modern slavery has been moderated significantly by product price, in favour of the firm.

The findings of the study connect to the RBV theory very succinctly, as it reveals that the presence of an elevated perception of modern slavery negatively affects brand trust. This highlights the link between the intangible resource of public perception and the trust customers have in the brand. If the resource is not managed properly and is negatively perceived by customers, the trust could be affected. The study also crystalizes the systems theory which affirms that activities and circumstances that are outside the control of a firm’s management can affect the firm negatively or positively. In this case, activities outside the direct control of the firm, in its supply partners, have affected the image and the trust of the brand.

The study is relevant to practice in multiple ways. It highlights the relevance of having zero tolerance for modern slavery in supply chains. In this age of elevated information accessibility, having favourable customer perception (especially in the modern slavery context) would do the company a lot of good in its pursuit of customer satisfaction. The study equally reveals to managers that the perception of customers on modern slavery can negatively affect brand trust directly, however, it is positive indirectly. Therefore, strategies must be implemented to ensure that modern slavery is minimised in their supply chain to avoid negative customer perceptions, which may affect the brand trust negatively. Firstly, manufacturing firms must implement a supply chain modern slavery report in the annual financial statements of the firm, which explicitly states the company’s stance on labour-related modern slavery. The report should also go beyond the company’s stance and address strategies implemented to reduce the level of supply chain modern slavery in their partner firms, and the impact the strategies are having on minimising modern slavery, as well as consequences for defaulters along the supply chain. Secondly, the focal company of the manufacturing supply chain could also install closed-circuit television (CCTV) cameras (that are feeders to a server that only the focal firm has access to) in strategic positions in the production floor and warehouses of their supply partners. This is expected to curtail the dehumanisation of workers in partner firms, as well as improve the HSE (Health, Safety and Environment) conditions in the factories of partner firms. Thirdly, regular and/or unscheduled visits to partner firms should be practised to put pressure on them to maintain high standards of their working environment in line with pre-established conditions between focal firms and partners.

Finally, the incorporation of high technological approaches in managing modern slavery. This includes establishing an anonymous digital alert system to enable anyone in the supply chain to alert the focal firm of a breach in ethical guidelines bordering on modern slavery. Hour trackers to ensure no employee works above recommended hours/day, and Internet monitoring to constantly filter big data from social media on inhumane conditions of employees along the supply chain. It is believed that most modern slavery stories had been brought to social media long before authorities got to know. This way, the firm stays informed, real-time and unadulterated. In addition to these, AI has made interesting approaches possible, including age-verifying face scanners. Focal firms can implement these across their chain, especially the supply end. This will help in combating child labour. Executives must understand that manufacturing firms that overlook the activities of supply chain members may be risking their firm’s perception; and subsequently, brand trust. There is a strategy for managing brand trust in the face of modern slavery perception. Product price is a strategy that can be applied to counter the direction of the relationship between modern slavery perception and brand trust, as the study reveals that product price positively strengthens the relationship between modern slavery and brand trust.

This study tested several direct and moderating examinations. It however did not examine the reason behind the moderation direction, significance or insignificance in some relationships. Further studies can exploit this area and seek qualitative research to understand why the relationship results have gone in the direction they went. In addition, a wider data collection can be executed, perhaps across the country or countries. Finally, a comparative analysis of how different business environments affect relationships can be researched.