{"id":1304,"date":"2019-07-19T15:50:00","date_gmt":"2019-07-19T15:50:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/hub.findingsimple.com\/au\/?p=1304"},"modified":"2023-07-04T15:20:14","modified_gmt":"2023-07-04T04:20:14","slug":"modern-slavery-act-how-can-companies-go-beyond-compliance","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/insight.thomsonreuters.com.au\/legal\/posts\/modern-slavery-act-how-can-companies-go-beyond-compliance","title":{"rendered":"Modern Slavery Act: How Can Companies Go Beyond Compliance?"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

The start of the new financial year has seen many of Australia\u2019s largest companies enter their first reporting period under the new Commonwealth Modern Slavery Act<\/em><\/a>. And, in an unanticipated development, it has also seen new uncertainty about the future of the NSW modern slavery legislation, with the NSW act being sent back to the parliamentary committee for further consideration, writes Michael Milnes.<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

For those companies that are required to comply with the new Commonwealth act, there are certainly steps to go through to ensure the reporting requirement is met. Those requirements have been well signalled for some time, and for the most part, companies appear to have started updating their processes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

According to the Regulation Impact Statement that accompanied the act, the new reporting requirement will apply to about 3,000 corporate groups and other qualifying entities. The effect of the act will also be noticed more widely \u2013 companies that supply to those large enterprises are more likely now to be required to answer questions about their own efforts to eradicate modern slavery from their operations, as part of their customers\u2019 suppliers onboarding procedures.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The \u2018social licence to operate\u2019<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

How companies respond to the new reporting requirement is part of the wider trend towards companies being required to maintain their \u201csocial licence to operate\u201d \u2013 that is, satisfy stakeholder expectations that go beyond basic legal compliance.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

We saw this in the financial services sector, where behaviour was tested against concepts such as\u00a0\u201ccommunity trust\u201d\u00a0and\u00a0\u201ccommunity standards and expectations\u201d, during both the banking royal commission and in APRA’s investigation into the Commonwealth Bank. We saw it also emerging out of the #MeToo movement, with growing criticism of legal\u00a0\u201ctactics\u201d,\u00a0such as the use of defamation law or onerous settlement and non-disclosure agreement<\/a>s that might be used to silence victims.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Increasingly companies are asking not just \u201ccan we\u201d do something, but \u201cshould we\u201d?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Australian companies are also currently adapting to a range of emerging regulations \u2013 covering topics as diverse as bribery and corruption, whistleblower protection and the modern slavery reporting requirement. Against this backdrop, many companies will also now be asking themselves \u2013 do we need to do more than just comply with the Modern Slavery Act<\/em>? And if so, what? If modern slavery is found in the company’s supply chain for products or services, will it be enough to say \u201cwe didn\u2019t know\u201d?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Strategies and approaches for the conscious company<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

There is a growing awareness by companies that there could well be human rights abuse happening in their supply chain and that outcomes for victims depend on actions taken by the company. For companies, going \u201cbeyond compliance\u201d might mean implementing new strategies or adopting new approaches:<\/p>\n\n\n\n