3. Andrew Wallis, Founder and CEO of Unseen, talks about how to disrupt a system of human exploitation, the scale of which the world has not seen before

“Breaking up baked-in systems”; Andrew Wallis, Founder and CEO of Unseen, an organisation working towards the eradication of modern slavery, talks to Elaine Herdman-Barker, Chair of Global Leadership Associates and Partner for Mutual Growth and the search for the Common Good about how to disrupt a system of human exploitation, the scale of which the world has not seen before. With minimum estimates of 50 million held in slavery, it took a long time for things to get this far. How can it be brought to a stop? What can leaders, from all walks of life do, to alter the progress of any system, well fixed in commercial gain?

Read our accompanying article to the episode here. 

Transcript

Hello, I'm here today with Andrew Wallis, who is the Founder and CEO of Unseen, an organisation working towards the eradication of modern slavery. His bio is attached, but the phrase 'the loveliest disruptor you could ever meet' is perhaps all that needs saying for now. Not only is it memorable, it suggests more than a fighting spirit is required to stop the exploitation of people. Andrew, welcome.

Hi, nice to be here.

Good to have you here. You're dedicated to helping the injured: people who are treated simply as lucrative commodities, hidden away in a nihilistic global trade. What's the scale of the problem you're tackling? I imagine it's going to surprise people.

So globally, the current estimates are about 40 million, and just a little bit north of that, individuals are held in situations of modern slavery. That could be forced labour, sexual exploitation, domestic servitude, forced criminality, forced marriage and organ trafficking. That figure is significantly out of date now, and is being looked at again, and the estimates are that it will be revised upwards - not helped by the pandemic either - so probably somewhere approaching 60 million people. To bring it down to sort of - and make it connectable to people, because 60 million is a big number to deal with. It's a trade that's probably worth half a trillion dollars profit per annum.

Wow!

But if I was to ask three questions of people, namely, are you wearing clothes, do you eat food and do you have consumer electronics, then we are all probably connected to at least 40 or 60 slaves in the world supply chains. So it's a big problem, but it's a problem that touches all of our lives.

Wow! Shocking! And how do you go about disrupting that?

That's a great question. I mean, I think with - it's very trite to sort of say these things, but the reality, as it is, it often feels like you're pushing water up a hill, because what you're trying to disrupt are baked-in systems that lead to situations of modern slavery. So the push factors are economic, climate, persecution, wars, and the pull factors are a demand for cheap services, cheap goods and cheap labour. So we've got this global system that is perfectly designed to deliver the results that we're getting. So hence, why I enjoyed receiving the title of 'the loveliest disruptor you will ever meet', it's because actually what… In order to tackle this, you have to think at a systems level in terms of what are the big things that we need to do, but in order to be able to do that, you also simultaneously have to deal with an individual. So my organisation works to everything, individuals that have been victims of modern slavery and we take, if you like, that frontline expertise of working with individuals, working with police, working with businesses. And in the UK there's the Modern Slavery Helpline, all of that frontline information to then really think hard about what are the systemic problems that are at play here?

Whether that's the model for procurement that is entirely incentivised on profit, that creates the environment for exploitation to take place, or what does it mean to safely migrate and, actually, what is our attitude? And this is particularly pertinent to the UK at the moment: what's our attitude towards the other, or to the migrant, or to the refugee and the asylum seeker, all are potentially vulnerable to exploitation? And then having an evidence-based is - and proving that actually, if you do things differently, you get different outcomes.

So it feels a massive, almighty scale of problem that you're facing. And to disrupt it, how - I'm trying to imagine how you can think strategically to disrupt this scale of problem. And we all imagine that we're capable of thinking strategically, planning for the long term. But from what you're saying, there's so much more to it that disruption, I imagine, comes when we change what we're thinking about strategically, if that makes sense?

Yes. And I think that we're not taught in society to think either long term, or to think strategically. We're taught to deal with the problems that are immediately in front of us. And, yes, we might have a three-year plan or a five-year plan, but often, when I talk with other business leaders, I say, okay, so what's your strategy for the next 20, 30, 40 years? Because, for me, to [?check up on 05:21] and say, right, I have to think in those timelines, because I'm not going to achieve our mission statement, which is to put ourselves out of business in the next five, ten or 20 years. I think I can do it in a generation, so 40 or 50 years in that whole process. So that means then you have to say, okay, what do we need to do now that will affect that long term? I think the second thing is, that there are a limited number of people that can think strategically, and that's not me blowing my own trumpet, I think that is just sort of borne out by the evidence. And then I think there's another thing, which is I remember in 2011, sitting in the Home Office and them saying to me, you're not going to get an independent anti-slavery commission, and you're certainly not going to get a modern slavery act. You're out of your head if you think you're going to get better care for victims. You're certainly not going to get a helpline. And this thing around transparency and supply chains, by bringing businesses into the equation. Absolutely not, we're in the middle of a red tape challenge.

I love it when people say to me, you can't do those things, because I probably haven't grown up, because I go, well, why? And it's partly driven by my social justice bent, but it's like, why do we have to accept the way that things are? And then you go into, well, any idiot can ask why, and it's then beyond that, and you've got to then come forward with a solution, and a workable solution. And that's a lot of work, because - and I think this is the reason I achieved all of those five things. Not on my own, with the help of lots of other people, but we achieved them, because we went and did the hard nine yards, and we found the evidence. We did the hard thinking around, okay, what are the alternatives, and what would happen if we did these things? So that you build a compelling argument for doing it. But even doing that isn't enough, and you then needed a good headwind. We needed political nouse to make it happen, politically, in that whole process. Now, that took five or six years just to get to that. Did we eradicate modern slavery with the advent of the Modern Slavery Act in 2015? No. And it's about coming back to that long-term name the whole time. Keep course correct and keep coming back, but keep saying and reminding yourself this is what we're trying to do. And it will be disruption, because I think things settled to almost like the lowest common denominator, and especially in the field of social justice, and saying that, actually, we want things to be better than just as they are. And often that means to completely be upending things.

And there was - in there, there's a number of elements that I'd just like to continue with, if I may. And one of those, is you touched on working with businesses and governments, and other stakeholders. So it sounds as if you're bringing into your strategy, the collective endeavour, the collaboration, rather than being alone while fighting from a corner, it sounds as though that's a central piece of your strategic intent.

I think it's both, and. So I think the starting point is the lone wolf. It is looking at something, and I think this is why the charities exist. I think they exist, because somebody at some point looked at something and said this isn't right, we need to change this. I think often where things go wrong is it actually, it's not too long before it then becomes about the preservation of the thing, rather than changing the issue in the whole process. So I think it's about that ability to look and say, but then actually going, I can't do this on my own. And it's the humility of saying, I haven't got all the smarts here. So it's an old adage, but surround yourself with people that are smarter than you, so you look reasonably competent. But it's then, because this is a societal issue, because this is a structural systemic issue, you can't just do one bit, you've got to do all of the bits simultaneously, or try and do them simultaneously, and try and do that and so it is about building coalitions. And we talk about creating CoWs, Coalitions of the Willing, so to really stretch this analogy, you've got to have a herding instinct as well.

So if you don't do it structurally, and you don't do it across the whole of society, then things can get out of kilter pretty quickly. And so you have to deal with that internal frustration of you can't always go at the pace that you want to go at, and you've got to sort of wait. And it's a constant battle, and because it's that constant battle, you end up upsetting people, because sometimes they go, well, we can do this, but it'll take us 20 years to do it. And you think, well, you don't have 20 years, and I need you to do it in three. And so that's a constant tension that you have to live with in that whole process. But then it is also saying, how do I construct my arguments for doing this thing, where people are compelled to do it and want to do it, and it's… But beyond that, it's beyond just being the right thing to do, it's actually also beneficial to do it as well.

And for leaders in lots of different sectors, Andrew, they talk about zooming in and zooming out, and looking for long-term acting now, and it's an ordinary part of their daily lives. But what strikes me is you're in an extraordinary environment, so with millions of children being trafficked every year, there's urgency to it, to act now, to see the pain and the horror that's occurring worldwide. And yet you also need to find time to pause, to look up and out, and to reflect on what it is you've been describing. How do you manage that?

I don't know, I hoped you were going to tell me! I think, I mean, for me, I think there's an internal compass and an internal motivation. And I would defy anybody to meet a victim of trafficking and not get some of that as well, child or adult, because that is somebody's child, and it's somebody's father, mother, uncle, daughter, son, niece, nephew. And modern slavery is agnostic, in terms of who it's going to victimise in the whole process. And I've met victims with an MBA, and I've met victims that don't know what a mobile phone is, so and all points in between. So I think that motivation of, this is not right, and this is not how the human being should be treated, it is internally set within me. Yes, being a CEO of an organisation, like zoom in and zoom out, blah-blah-blah, and whatever, but that's around people that can do that for me. I think my primary role is about vision setting, and leading the organisation forward. And because what we're dealing with isn't just per se to the organisation itself, it is about this structural societal problem. My role is, if I look at my job description, is 80, 90 per cent outward facing, and a lot of that outward facing is about… Ultimately, it's about putting the organisation out of business, because you're trying to tackle those structural issues, that means that modern slavery can't exist.

But that point around pausing, I think I can pause when I'm pushing up the daisies, because life is too short. But there are times when you just need to reflect and think, and so it's taking yourself away from it completely, which it sounds really easy to do, but it is almost switching off. And, for me, it's simple things like taking the dog for a walk, and just allowing at a subconscious level, things to percolate and trickle through, or just stepping away. Just because if you don't disengage and you don't decouple, it's very easy to get ground down, and then actually becoming effective. And sometimes it is that subconscious thinking, and we're just learning things from a percolate, and then things come up. Now, for me, I'm also an external processor, so it's funny, people that… Who just chew the fat with where - don't hold me to this, I just need to kick these things around - this is what I'm thinking. And out of that, it helps with formulation of ideas and the next steps.

And disengaging, decoupling, pause things, they all speak to a relationship to time, Andrew, and being conscious of how we are working through time, which is probably very unfashionable in today's world, where we're pretty squeezed and pinched for time. And I'm thinking about leaders in other sectors who may have an interest, feel a sense of commitment to modern slavery, but don't find the time to engage, and whether there is a relationship between time and social responsibility. If we've got so much of our noses, as you say, to the grindstone, how do we disengage and find a different relationship to time?

It's difficult, because it means then you've got to make a conscious decision to swim against not only the tide, but the shoal that's going in the other direction. But, actually, there's so much research out there now in terms of even in an hour, how effective are you in an hour? And you can only be effective, and it does tail off really rapidly, for about a maximum of 40 minutes in every hour. And then you should disengage, and you should step away. I've just taken my senior management team through this, which is they were all saying, oh, we don't have enough time, and everything else. And I said, okay, actually, I only want you to work 40 minutes in every hour. And you could see the initial shock of, actually, how does that work? Or to look wider in my organisation, and this whole thing moves towards a four-day week. Does it work? All the evidence seems to suggest that it is working. So it's how we can be productive is the first step. But the point of pausing, and the point of thinking and the point of, as some psychologists say, it's the point of boredom, is actually allowing our brains to reset, so that they can cope.

And, look, I'm north of 50, and it isn't just for people of my age. It's what's changed in the last generation is the volume of information that comes with us, and our ability to process that information. And not just the volume, but the speed of information that comes. Part of the way of processing is pausing, and it's reflecting, and it's stepping away, it's building in time for recreation, for rest, for boredom, so that when we do work, it's effective. And, actually, a lot of my role, and I think a lot of senior roles, is about think - thinking - mulling, contemplating, and less about doing. So that when you do do, it's effective, but also it's about the long term. It's back to this long term, and how… If I run at 100 miles an hour the whole time, or to… That analogy, if you burn the candle at both ends, you're not as bright as you think you are. It's when is the time to light the candle, and when is the time to blow the candle out? When is it time to shut the laptop, or turn the phone off? And we can use technology to see ourselves from the business, as well, so that we're not contactable. And often we think we're far more important than we actually are. And then we've discovered that the world functions quite happily, and the organisation functions quite happily without us, so that should bring a little bit of humility to the whole process. It's finding that balance.

And the human quality as well, I was thinking, as you were speaking there, what we get as individuals from engaging with something beyond ourselves. You mentioned earlier about your inner world, and what's motivating you, so what individuals may get out of contributing to the lives of people they are never going to meet?

Yeah, and let me bring it back to the long term. So when you're lying on your deathbed, what is it that you want to be remembered for, and what is it that you… What - we'll put it another way: what would be in your obituary? You worked all hours that you possibly could, and better [unclear 20:02] and at the end of that, you could just write the question, so what? Or is it, actually, this is what I contributed to society, this is how I tried to make better of wherever I am, and the situation that I'm in. And, actually, do you even need that recognition by helping someone that you may never need? If you do, then actually, there's a question around your value system there as well. So this is about how can I contribute to the improving of the world for where it currently is, and it doesn't really matter what set that you're in, that should be it. So, actually, that obituary talks about the value that you've given back, how you've contributed, not what you've amassed or acquired. And great, we had thousands of stock options and lots of different ad techs. Well, guess what? They don't come with you. And so maybe the ultimate long-term question is, how do you want your life to be assessed at its end? And then work back from that to wherever you are and say, okay, well, what does that direction travel now look like, from where I am to then?

That's a great question, and could that be applied to businesses?

Yeah.

I wonder whether some businesses are getting lost in the woods of success, and that that notion could be broadened significantly?

Absolutely. I mean, so why do businesses exist? And maybe that's a question, if you're a CEO or you're a senior leader in businesses, to say, well, what is the purpose for what we're doing? What kind of organisation are we? Are we just about maximising the return to shareholders and investors, and generating profits and getting bigger salaries and doing more, more, more? Or, actually, is there a social purpose to business? And business, if you go back a few centuries, the purpose of business was for social good, and I think we've lost that. And we've lost it through things like quarterly reporting, and the way that investments are structured, and how we assess what a good business is. And we should be saying, business is part of our social construct. So what is the purpose of that business, and what social good can it bring? Because, otherwise, it's just lost and it just becomes a money-making machine. And, unfortunately, this ties all the way back to modern slavery, which is it's that environment that has led to procurement only being incentivised on profit, that puts enormous strain on a business. Quarterly reporting does exactly the same. And once you put those pressures into the system, they work their way down the system, and then you create an environment that is right for exploitation and corner cutting, and all of those things that we regularly now, and repeatedly read in the press.

So you then say, well, okay, if that's true, then the purpose of business is to bring exploitation, and is that really what you're about? And there aren't many people who would answer yes to that, but it's the inconvenient truth. And then you come back to, okay, well, we need to change the system, and we need to change the business, because that's not why this business started in the first place. And businesses are full of good people that want it to be significant and bring change, but sometimes it's a bit like the matrix: you get plugged into it and then you can't really see, like you said, the wood for the trees. And you need to unplug yourself and say, actually, what's my individual purpose, and what are my values? Does that align with this business, or do I need to realign this business, so that there are values and there are purpose, and the risk [unclear 24:22] we do.

Thank you, Andrew. And I've got one final question. It's about human dignity. It's an old-fashioned term, but do you think there's ample room for us to bring the notion of paying attention to human dignity, and the flesh and blood in organisations, rather than language around currency?

Yes, and I think we pay lip service to it, because I've never yet met a business which says, oh, our most valuable asset are our people. And then you go, well, prove it. What does that mean, and how does that work? But I think it's wider than that, and it's how do we want to be treated by others, and how do we treat others really, really matters. And I think having come through the pandemic, living in the midst of the current economic crisis and the uncertainty around the globe, and all of these massive issues that are coming careering towards us, there are things that are within our control and things that are outside of our control. But the things that are within our control, is how we treat others. That's always within our control, and that's always a choice. And if we see others, and in my case, it's often the other and the minority, and the oppressed and the exploited. If we see others and how we treat them is absolutely critical to how we are perceived and treated as well, then I think lots of things change and ultimately we are responsible for ourselves, and those things that we can control. So, yeah, how - what's the scorecard going to be?

It's a wonderful thought to end on, and we have a choice in how we treat others. Thanks, Andrew.