Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-11T03:28:19.116Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Corporate Responses to Tackling Modern Slavery: A Comparative Analysis of Australia, France and the United Kingdom

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 November 2021

Fiona McGaughey Open the ORCID record for Fiona McGaughey [Opens in a new window] ,
Hinrich Voss Open the ORCID record for Hinrich Voss [Opens in a new window] ,
Holly Cullen Open the ORCID record for Holly Cullen [Opens in a new window]  and
Matthew C Davis Open the ORCID record for Matthew C Davis [Opens in a new window]
Fiona McGaughey*
Affiliation:
Law School, University of Western Australia, Perth, Western Australia 6009
Hinrich Voss
Affiliation:
HEC Montreal, HEC Montréal, 3000, chemin de la Côte-Sainte-Catherine Montréal (Québec), Canada H3T 2A7; email: hinrich.voss@hec.ca
Holly Cullen
Affiliation:
Law School, University of Western Australia, Perth, Western Australia 6009; email: holly.cullen@uwa.edu.au
Matthew C Davis
Affiliation:
Leeds University Business School, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, UK; email: M.Davis@Leeds.ac.uk
*
*Corresponding author. Email: fiona.mcgaughey@uwa.edu.au
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The business and human rights agenda is gaining momentum internationally, perhaps best evidenced through recent legislative responses to tackling modern slavery. Using a reflexive law lens, we analyse three recent laws – the UK Modern Slavery Act 2015, the French ‘duty of vigilance’ law of 2017, and the Australian Modern Slavery Act 2018 (Cth). The three laws, or their accompanying guidance, share characteristics in terms of reporting requirements: the supply chain; risk mapping/assessment and management; analysis of subsidiary and supply chain risk; and effectiveness. The French Act has a broader scope as it is a due diligence, rather than a reporting law and includes obligations with regard to human rights and fundamental freedoms, health and safety, and the environment. It is the only Act of the three with substantive penalty provisions. All reporting requirements in the French and Australian Acts are mandatory, but the UK Act has limited mandatory reporting requirements. We find that only 22 companies globally will be required to report under all three laws. Using a subset of this dataset, we analysed 59 French vigilance plans and UK modern slavery statements published by nine manufacturing companies. This provided some preliminary analysis of how businesses have reported under the French Droit de Vigilance and the UK Modern Slavery Act (reports under the Australian Modern Slavery Act for these companies were not published at time of writing). Overall, businesses are using less demanding measures such as introducing policies and delivering training more commonly than the somewhat more resource-intensive activities such as audits. The more onerous requirements of the French law were reflected in the content and level of detail in the vigilance plans, compared with the UK modern slavery statements. However, for some companies, there were strong similarities between the UK and French publications, indicating ‘creep’ from the French Act into UK reports or a ‘race to the top’.

Keywords

Australiadue diligenceFrancemodern slaveryModern Slavery ActUK
Type
Scholarly Article
Information
Business and Human Rights Journal , Volume 7 , Issue 2 , June 2022 , pp. 249 - 270
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Modern Slavery Act 2015 (UK) (UK MSA).

2 Loi no. 2017-399 du 27 Mars 2017 relative au devoir de vigilance des sociétés mères et des entreprises donneuses d’ordre (France) (Loi no. 2017-399).

3 Modern Slavery Act 2018 (Cth).

4 Buhmann, Karin, ‘Integrating Human Rights in Emerging Regulation of Corporate Social Responsibility: The EU Case’ (2011) 7:2 International Journal of Law in Context 139–179, 166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

5 LeBaron, Genevieve and Ruhmkorf, Andreas, ‘The Domestic Politics of Corporate Accountability Legislation: Struggles Over the 2015 UK Modern Slavery Act’ (2019) 17:3 Socio-Economic Review 709–743 Google Scholar; Virginia Mantouvalou, ‘The UK Modern Slavery Act 2015 Three Years On’ (2018) 81:6 The Modern Law Review 1017–1045; Stephen John New, ‘Modern Slavery and The Supply Chain: The Limits of Corporate Social Responsibility? (2015) 20:6 Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 697–707.

6 Business and Human Rights Resource Centre, UK Modern Slavery Act: Missed opportunities and urgent lessons (15 February 2021), https://www.business-humanrights.org/en/from-us/briefings/uk-modern-slavery-act-missed-opportunities-and-urgent-lessons/ (accessed 25 May 2021).

7 See, e.g., Gilad, Sharon, ‘It Runs in the Family: Meta-regulation and its Siblings’ (2010) 4:4 Regulation & Governance 485–506 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Christine Parker and John Braithwaite, ‘Regulation’, in Mark Tushnet and Peter Cane (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Legal Studies (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003) 119–145.

8 Tusikov, Natasha, ‘Transnational Non-state Regulatory Regimes’, in Drahos, Peter (ed.), Regulatory Theory: Foundations and Applications (Canberra: Australian National University Press, 2017) 339–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

9 See, e.g., Dilling, Olaf, Herberg, Martin and Winter, Gerd (eds.) Responsible Business: Self-Governance and Law in Transnational Economic Transactions (Oxford, UK and Portland: Hart Publishing, 2008).Google Scholar

10 Landau, Ingrid, ‘Human Rights Due Diligence and the Risk of Cosmetic Compliance’ (2019) 20:1 Melbourne Journal of International Law 221–248.Google Scholar

11 Braithwaite, John and Drahos, Peter, Global Business Regulation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000) 28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

12 Ibid.

13 United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, ‘Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights’, https://www.ohchr.org/documents/publications/guidingprinciplesbusinesshr_en.pdf (accessed 10 December 2020).

14 The corporate responsibility to respect human rights has been described as a multi-layered concept: Radu Mares, ‘Human Rights Due Diligence and the Root Causes of Harm in Business Operation’ (2018) 10:1 Northeastern University Law Review 1–69. It is often integrated with the somewhat more concrete concept of human rights due diligence. See, for example, Enrico Partiti, ‘Polycentricity and Polyphony in International Law: Interpreting the Corporate Responsibility to Respect Human Rights’ (2021) 70:1 International and Comparative Law Quarterly 133–164, 139–140, who, at 141, describes the corporate responsibility to respect as ‘a broad normative, qualitative, and purposive principle that corporations should generally respect human rights in their activities’.

15 Hampton, Diane Bulan, ‘Modern Slavery in Global Supply Chains: Can National Action Plans on Business and Human Rights Close the Governance Gap?’ (2019) 4:2 Business and Human Rights Journal 239–263, 241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

16 Parker, Christine and Howe, John, ‘Ruggie’s Diplomatic Project and its Missing Regulatory Infrastructure’, in Mares, Radu (ed.), The UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights: Foundations and Implementation (Leiden: Brill, 2012) 273, 279.Google Scholar

17 Ibid, 300.

18 Mathias Seims, ‘Malicious Legal Transplants’ (2018) 38 Legal Studies 103, 103.

19 Legrand, Pierre, ‘What “Legal Transplants”?’ in Nelken, David and Feest, Johannes (eds.), Adapting Legal Cultures (Portland: Hart Publishing, 2001) 55.Google Scholar

20 William Twining, ‘Normative and Legal Pluralism: A Global Perspective’ (2010) 20 Duke Journal of International and Comparative Law 473, 517.

21 See, e.g., Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia, Modern Slavery and Global Supply Chains: Interim Report of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade’s Inquiry Into Establishing a Modern Slavery Act in Australia (August 2017).

22 David Weissbrodt and Anti-Slavery International, Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, ‘Abolishing Slavery and its Contemporary Forms’, HR/PUB/02/4 (2002).

23 Ibid.

24 Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons Especially Women and Children, UN Doc 2237 UNTS 319 (adopted on 25 December 2003, entered into force on 25 December 2003).

25 Human Rights Council, ‘Elaboration of an International Legally Binding Instrument on Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises With Respect to Human Rights’, A/HRC/RES/26/9 (14 July 2014). A second draft of the proposed treaty was released in 2020: Human Rights Council, ‘Open-Ended Intergovernmental Working Group Chairmanship Second Revised Draft’, https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/WGTransCorp/Session6/OEIGWG_Chair-Rapporteur_second_revised_draft_LBI_on_TNCs_and_OBEs_with_respect_to_Human_Rights.pdf (11 November 2020).

26 United Kingdom Government, Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, ‘Good Business: Implementing the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, updated May 2016’, Cm 9255 (May 2016); République Française, Ministère des affaires étrangères et du développement international, ‘National Action Plan for the Implementation of the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights’, https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Business/NationalPlans/NAP_France_EN.pdf (accessed 14 November 2020).

27 Rivera, Humberto Cantu, ‘National Action Plans on Business and Human Rights: Progress or Mirage?’ (2019) 4:2 Business and Human Rights Journal 213–237, 223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

28 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, ‘Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises’, http://mneguidelines.oecd.org/guidelines/ (accessed 7 February 2020).

29 Lahra Liberti, ‘OECD 50th Anniversary: The Updated OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises and the New OECD Recommendation on Due Diligence Guidance for Conflict-Free Mineral Supply Chains’ (2012) 13 Business Law International 35, 37; Holly Cullen, ‘The Irresistible Rise of Human Rights Due Diligence: Conflict Minerals and Beyond’ (2016) 48 George Washington International Law Review 743, 754.

30 See Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, ‘OECD Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Supply Chains of Minerals from Conflict-Affected and High-Risk Areas’, 3rd edn (2016); Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, ‘OECD Due Diligence Guidance for Meaningful Stakeholder Engagement in the Extractive Sector’ (2017). On the OECD’s general approach to due diligence and responsible business, see Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, ‘OECD Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Business Conduct’ (2018).

31 Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (US).

32 Act Amending the Danish Financial Statement Act (Accounting for CSR in Large Businesses) (Denmark), adopted by the Danish Parliament on 16 December 2008.

33 European Union Non-Financial Reporting Directive (Directive 2014/95/EU) (EU).

34 OECD, ‘OECD Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Business Conduct’ (2018). See Catie Shavin, ‘Unlocking the Potential of the New OECD Due Diligence Guidance on Responsible Business Conduct’ (2019) 4:1 Business and Human Rights Journal 139–145.

35 Australia, Department for Home Affairs, ‘Commonwealth Modern Slavery Act 2018: Guidance for Reporting Entities’, in paragraph 53, links the Act’s concept of due diligence with that in the UNGPs. It also includes, in Table 8, the ‘OECD Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Business’ as a resource for reporting entities.

36 Anneloes Hoff, ‘Dutch Child Labour Due Diligence Law: A Step Towards Mandatory Human Rights Due Diligence’, Oxford Human Rights Hub (10 June 2019), https://ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk/dutch-child-labour-due-diligence-law-a-step-towards-mandatory-human-rights-due-diligence/ (accessed 6 February 2020).

37 European Commission, ‘Sustainable Corporate Governance’, https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/12548-Sustainable-corporate-governance/public-consultation (accessed 18 December 2020).

38 Business and Human Rights Resource Centre, ‘Proposal For an EU Wide Mandatory Human Rights Due Diligence Law’, https://www.business-humanrights.org/en/latest-news/proposal-for-an-eu-wide-mandatory-human-rights-due-diligence-law/ (accessed 18 December 2020).

39 See, e.g., Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia, Modern Slavery and Global Supply Chains: Interim Report of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade’s Inquiry Into Establishing a Modern Slavery Act in Australia (August 2017), para 3.36.

40 UK Home Office, ‘Transparency in Supply Chains etc. A Practical Guide’, https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/649906/Transparency_in_Supply_Chains_A_Practical_Guide_2017.pdf (accessed 10 January 2020).

41 Julia O’Connell Davidson, Modern Slavery: The Margins of Freedom (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2015).

42 Rose Broad and Nick Turnbull, ‘From Human Trafficking to Modern Slavery: The Development of Anti-Trafficking Policy in the UK’ (2019) 25 European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research 119.

43 LeBaron, Genevieve and Rühmkorf, Andreas, ‘The Domestic Politics of Corporate Accountability Legislation: Struggles Over the 2015 UK Modern Slavery Act’ (2019) 17:3 Socio-Economic Review 709.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

44 UK Home Office, ‘Transparency in Supply Chains etc. A Practical Guide’, https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/649906/Transparency_in_Supply_Chains_A_Practical_Guide_2017.pdf (accessed 10 October 2019).

45 Voss, Hinrich et al, ‘International Supply Chains: Compliance and Engagement With the Modern Slavery Act’ (2019) 7:s1 Journal of the British Academy 61–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

46 Loi no. 2017-399, note 2.

47 Ibid, 320.

48 Ibid, 319.

49 Friends of the Earth International, ‘Oil Company Total Faces Historic Legal Action in France for Human Rights and Environmental Violations in Uganda’, https://www.foei.org/news/total-legal-action-france-human-rights-environment-uganda (accessed 18 December 2020). On 10 December 2020, the Versailles Court of Appeal confirmed a lower court decision that the case should be heard in the commercial court, but there has not yet been a ruling on the merits of the case: Business and Human Rights Resource Centre, ‘France: Appeals Court Remands First Case Filed Under Duty of Vigilance Law to the Commercial Court’ (14 December 2020), https://www.business-humanrights.org/en/latest-news/total-uganda-case-the-court-of-appeal-of-versailles-remands-the-case-to-the-commercial-court/ (accessed 18 December 2020).

50 Vigilance Plan, ‘Duty of Vigilance Radar’, https://vigilance-plan.org/ (accessed 18 December 2020).

51 Sandra Cossart, Jerome Chaplier and Tiphaine Beau de Lomenie, ‘The French Law on Duty of Care: A Historic Step Towards Making Globalization Work for All’ (2017) 2 Business and Human Rights Journal 317.

52 Conseil Constitutionnel, ‘Communiqué de presse: Décision no. 2017-750 DC du 23 mars 2017 – Loi relative au devoir de vigilance des sociétés mères et des entreprises donneuses d’ordre’ (23 March 2017), https://www.conseil-constitutionnel.fr/actualites/communique/decision-n-2017-750-dc-du-23-mars-2017-communique-de-presse#:~:text=Par%20sa%20d%C3%A9cision%20n%C2%B0,des%20entreprises%20donneuses%20d’ordre (accessed 7 February 2020).

53 Les Amis de la Terre (Friends of the Earth France), ‘End of the Road for Transnational Corporations? Human Rights and Environment: From a Groundbreaking French Law to a UN Treaty’, http://www.foei.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/end_of_the_road_for_tncs_foef-aaf-oct17_ENG.pdf (accessed 20 September 2020).

54 Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia, Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Inquiry into establishing a Modern Slavery Act in Australia, ‘Terms of Reference’, https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joint/Foreign_Affairs_Defence_and_Trade/ModernSlavery/Interim_Report/section?id=committees%2freportjnt%2f024092%2f24997 (accessed 4 June 2019).

55 See, e.g., Rio Tinto, ‘Slavery and Human Trafficking Statement 2016’, http://www.riotinto.com/documents/RT_Slavery_and_human_trafficking_statement.pdf (accessed 3 January 2021); Wesfarmers, ‘Wesfarmers Human Rights and Modern Slavery Statement’, https://sustainability.wesfarmers.com.au/our-principles/sourcing/ethical-sourcing-and-human-rights/wesfarmers-human-rights-and-modern-slavery-statement/ (accessed 3 January 2021).

56 Criminal Code Amendment (Slavery and Sexual Servitude) Act 1999 (Cth); Crimes Legislation Amendment (People Smuggling, Firearms Trafficking and Other Measures) Act 2002 (Cth); Criminal Code Amendment (Trafficking in Person Offences) Act 2005 (Cth); Crimes Legislation Amendment (Slavery, Slavery-like Conditions and People Trafficking) Act 2013 (Cth).

57 Fiona McGaughey et al, ‘Should Australia have a Modern Slavery Act?’, The Conversation (13 June 2017), https://theconversation.com/should-australia-have-a-modern-slavery-act-79335 (accessed 20 September 2020).

58 Minderoo Foundation, ‘Walk Free’, https://www.minderoo.com.au/walk-free/ (accessed 20 September 2020).

59 Human Rights Council, ‘Report of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review of Australia’, A/HRC/31/14 (13 January 2016).

60 Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, ‘Multi-Stakeholder Advisory Group on Implementation of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights’, https://dfat.gov.au/international-relations/themes/human-rights/business/Pages/multi-stakeholder-advisory-group-on-implementation-of-the-un-guiding-principles-on-business-and-human-rights.aspx (accessed 13 January 2021).

61 IBISWorld, https://my.ibisworld.com/ (accessed 12 October 2019).

62 United States Department of Labor, ‘Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Manual’, https://www.osha.gov/pls/imis/sic_manual.html (accessed 12 October 2019). Two companies were not able to be identified according to SIC – Transdev Group and HSBC France.

63 While some UK subsidiaries prepare statements in their own name, others publish statements prepared in the name of the group more generally. Corporate acquisitions and mergers may have taken place during the reporting years of 2016 and 2019.

64 For the French companies, all but LVMH’s vigilance plan for 2017 were found.

65 Sherpa, ‘Vigilance Plans Reference Guidance’, https://www.asso-sherpa.org/vigilance-plans-reference-guidance-legal-analysis-on-the-duty-of-vigilance-pioneering-law (accessed 18 July 2020); Business and Human Rights Resource Centre, ‘FTSE 100 at the Starting Line: An Analysis of Company Statements Under the UK Modern Slavery Act’ (16 November 2016), https://www.business-humanrights.org/en/from-us/briefings/ftse-100-at-the-starting-line-an-analysis-of-company-statements-under-the-uk-modern-slavery-act/ (accessed 18 July 2020); Business and Human Rights Resource Centre, ‘FTSE 100 and the UK Modern Slavery Act: From Disclosure to Action’ (19 November 2018), https://www.business-humanrights.org/en/from-us/briefings/ftse-100-the-uk-modern-slavery-act-from-disclosure-to-action/ (accessed 18 July 2020); Jeff Schwartz, ‘The Conflict Minerals Experiment’ (2016) 6:1 Harvard Business Law Review 129.

66 Voss et al, note 45, 61–76.

67 Amy V Benstead, Linda C Hendry and Mark Stevenson, ‘Detecting and Remediating Modern Slavery in Supply Chains: A Targeted Audit Approach’ (2020) Production Planning & Control.

68 Nolan, Justine and Ford, Jolyon, ‘Regulating Transparency on Human Rights and Modern Slavery in Corporate Supply Chains: The Discrepancy Between Human Rights Due Diligence and the Social Audit’ (2020) 26:1 Australian Journal of Human Rights 27–45.Google Scholar

69 Business and Human Rights Resource Centre, note 65, 2.

70 Loi no. 2017-399, note 2, art 1–2.

71 UK MSA, note 1, sec 54(5).

72 LVMH Moet Hennessey Louis Vuitton, ‘2017 UK Modern Slavery Statement’, https://media.business-humanrights.org/media/documents/files/LVMH_Modern_Slavery_Statement_2017_SIGNED.pdf (accessed 10 October 2019).

73 See, for example, the reports of Infor Global Solutions (ANZ) Pty Limited, ‘Infor ANZ Modern Slavery Statement’, https://modernslaveryregister.gov.au/statements/file/96718727-47a0-45b7-ac1b-15d99b8a7ddf/ (accessed 10 January 2021); Toll Holdings Limited, ‘Toll Modern Slavery and Human Rights Statement FY 2020’, https://modernslaveryregister.gov.au/statements/file/3b5ff791-010c-4ce2-87c8-423722849f73/ (accessed 10 January 2021); American Airlines, ‘Modern Slavery Statement 2020’, https://modernslaveryregister.gov.au/statements/file/35dae6e3-23e5-4900-8f1f-16a3e8ffd431/ (accessed 10 January 2021). A few entities, such as Lenovo (Australia and New Zealand) Pty Limited, have submitted reports purporting to fulfil reporting obligations under the Australian and UK modern slavery laws and the California Transparency in Supply Chains Act of 2010 (US).

74 Infor Global Solutions, note 73.

75 Jansson, Dominika Borg, Modern Slavery: A Comparative Study of the Definition of Trafficking in Persons (Leiden: Brill Nijhoff, 2014).Google Scholar

76 Frost, Neli, ‘Transnational Corporations as Agents of Legal Change: The Role of Corporate Social Responsibility’ (2016) 5 Cambridge Journal of International and Comparative Law 502 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Chang-Hsien Tsai and Yen-Nung Wu, ‘What Conflict Minerals Rules Tell Us about the Legal Transplantation of Corporate Social Responsibility Standards without the State: From the United Nations to the United States to Taiwan’ (2018) 38 Northwestern Journal of International Law and Business 233.

77 Loi no. 2017-399, note 2, art 1(4).

78 UK Home Office, note 44.

79 Brabant, Stéphane and Savourey, Elsa, ‘French Law on the Corporate Duty of Vigilance: A Practical and Multidimensional Perspective’ (2017) 50 Revenue Internationale de la Compliance et de L’Ethique des Affaires 1.Google Scholar

80 Braithwaite and Drahos, note 11.

81 Brabant and Savourey, note 86, 6.

82 There are some developments underway in this area. See for example the Walk Free and Future Society initiative: Walk Free, ‘Artificial Intelligence to Assist in the Fight Against Modern Slavery’ (15 June 2020), https://www.walkfree.org/news/2020/artificial-intelligence-to-assist-in-the-fight-against-modern-slavery/ (accessed 18 July 2020).

83 Tsai and Wu, note 76; Frost, note 76.