abusesaffiliationarrow-downarrow-leftarrow-rightarrow-upattack-typeburgerchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-upClock iconclosedeletedevelopment-povertydiscriminationdollardownloademailenvironmentexternal-linkfacebookfiltergenderglobegroupshealthC4067174-3DD9-4B9E-AD64-284FDAAE6338@1xinformation-outlineinformationinstagraminvestment-trade-globalisationissueslabourlanguagesShapeCombined Shapeline, chart, up, arrow, graphLinkedInlocationmap-pinminusnewsorganisationotheroverviewpluspreviewArtboard 185profilerefreshIconnewssearchsecurityPathStock downStock steadyStock uptagticktooltiptwitteruniversalityweb

這頁面沒有繁體中文版本,現以English顯示

內容有以下的語言版本: English, 日本語

文章

2022年2月7日

作者:
Amy Sinclair,
作者:
Freya Dinshaw

Australia: New report from coalition of academic and civil society organisations shows companies are failing to comply with the Australian Modern Slavery Act

Human Rights Law Centre

"Paper Promises? Evaluating the early impact of Australia’s Modern Slavery Act", 7 February 2022

A coalition of human rights organisations, church groups and academics are calling on the federal government to strengthen Australia's modern slavery laws after a major new investigative report found companies are failing to identify obvious risks of forced labour in their supply chains or take action to address them.

The report, Paper Promises? Evaluating the early impact of Australia’s Modern Slavery Act, examines modern slavery statements published by 102 companies sourcing from four sectors with known risks of modern slavery: garments from China, rubber gloves from Malaysia, seafood from Thailand and fresh produce from Australia. It found that:

  • 77% of companies reviewed had failed to comply with the basic reporting requirements mandated by the legislation;
  • 52% had failed to identify obvious modern slavery risks in their operations or supply chains. Only one in four garment companies sourcing from China, for instance, made any mention of the risk of Uyghur forced labour in their supply chains;
  • Just 27% of companies appeared to be taking some form of effective action to address modern slavery risks.

The lowest scoring companies included Lite & Easy, Drakes Supermarkets and Clifford Hallam Healthcare, while the highest included Woolworths, Coles and Kathmandu.

The research was undertaken by the Human Rights Law Centre, Uniting Church of Australia Synod of Victoria and Tasmania, Baptist World Aid Australia, independent specialists, and academics from the University of New South Wales, RMIT, the University of Melbourne and the University of Notre Dame Australia as part of a 2-year collaborative project evaluating company responses to Australia's new modern slavery reporting regime, introduced in 2018.

The organisations have called for a range of measures to strengthen the regime, including the addition of penalties for companies that fail to comply with the law, mandatory due diligence requirements, improved access to justice for workers and better guidance for companies sourcing from high-risk sectors.

The Modern Slavery Act is due to be reviewed later this year.

Related media reports:

Financial Review

SBS News

ABC News

LawyersWeekly

Evaluating the early impact of Australia's Modern Slavery Act

On February 16 the Australian Human Rights Institute held a discussion about the impact of Australia's Modern Slavery Act with human rights experts and contributors to a new report, Paper Promises? Evaluating the early impact of Australia's Modern Slavery Act. The report is part of a two-year collaborative research project by academics and civil society organisations aimed at improving responses to modern slavery and access to remedy for affected workers.