On 1 January 2019, the Modern Slavery Act 2018 (Cth) (MSA 2018) came into force in Australia. The MSA 2018 requires entities based or operating in Australia with an annual consolidated revenue of more than 100 million AUS dollars to report annually on the risks of modern slavery in their operations and supply chains, and the actions taken to address those risks. The requirements of the MSA 2018 reflect increasing and strengthening modern slavery obligations around the world (see, for example, our previous Blog Post and earlier Legal Update).

The Australian Council of Superannuation Investors (ACSI) has published a report (the Report) evaluating the quality and compliance of reporting by companies listed on the Australian Securities Exchange (ASX200) during the first reporting cycle under the MSA 2018.  The report sets out a number of recommendations, including how companies can improve their disclosures and how investors can exert their influence to encourage best practice in modern slavery reporting.  Although the recommendations are focused on the ASX200 and the MSA 2018, the Report’s findings are of broader relevance to best practice reporting beyond Australia – and will be of interest to all stakeholders concerned with modern slavery reporting and emerging mandatory human rights and environmental due diligence legislation.Continue Reading Business and Human Rights – Reinforcing Modern Slavery Reporting – Lessons from Australia

‘With the most significant change since the GRI Standards launched in 2016, the revised Universal Standards set a new global benchmark for corporate transparency. Fully addressing gaps between the available disclosure frameworks and intergovernmental expectations for responsible business, including human rights reporting, they will enable more effective and comprehensive reporting than ever before.’

Judy Kuszewski, Chair of GRI’s Independent Global Sustainability Standard’s Board

The Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) have revised their Universal Standards to emphasize and require more transparency in reporting on human rights impacts and due diligence obligations. This is a significant update because all entities reporting in accordance with the GRI standards are required to report on the Universal Standards (now GRI 1, 2 and 3). Previously, human rights-related disclosures were addressed largely in the GRI 400 series on Social topics, on which an organization is required to report only if it determines those topics to be material. Under the revised Universal Standards, all companies reporting in accordance with the GRI Standards will need to be able to identify (and disclose) how they identify severe risks to the economy, environment and people—this now clearly includes impacts on human rights connected with their business, and what they are doing to address these risks.

This development is part of a multi-phase project to update the GRI’s human rights-related disclosures, and the emphasis on “double materiality” brings the GRI standards in line with the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs) and emerging mandatory human rights and environmental due diligence legislation (see our Previous Blogs here and here).  For companies that already adhere to the UNGPs, these revisions may not present a significant new challenge in practice; however, for companies that have not to date sought to explicitly adhere to the UNGPs, this will present a new challenge in terms of meeting the revised GRI standards.Continue Reading Business and Human Rights: Revised GRI Standards Integrate UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights and Foreshadow Emerging Mandatory Human Rights and Environmental Due Diligence Legislation

It was recently reported, on 8 September 2021, that investors managing USD 2.3 trillion in assets called for standardised climate and environmental disclosure from more than 1,000 privately held portfolio companies.  The investors, who joined a growing chorus advocating for improved disclosures around environmental issues, requested the private companies to provide such data through the non-profit disclosure platform, CDP, which provides a mechanism for climate disclosures that align with the recommendations of the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD).  The TCFD recommendations were published in June 2017, and have accelerated the focus on climate disclosures by providing the leading framework for disclosures relating to the financial impacts of climate-related risks.

But what are the TCFD recommendations, and how can companies prepare for reporting in compliance with them?Continue Reading TCFD Recommendations: An Update on Climate Disclosures

There is an undisputed trend of increased and strengthened human rights and environmental due diligence laws (for example, see our previous Blogs here and here).  A related trend is the rise of import controls to supplement such measures.  For example, the United States’ Customs and Border Protection agency have in recent times increasingly issued Withhold Release Orders to detain shipments of products suspected to be produced, in whole or in part, using forced labour (for example, see our Legal Updates here and here).

The European Commission is now assessing the adoption of action and enforcement instruments to tackle forced labour. Its consideration of such mechanisms coincides with the forthcoming legislative proposals from the European Commission on Sustainable Corporate Governance (SCG), a key element of which includes an obligation for corporations to undertake human rights and environmental due diligence (HREDD).

A coalition of NGOs, including Anti-Slavery International and the European Coalition for Corporate Justice, have released an NGO position paper raising some key considerations in the development of potential import control measures in tandem with a mandatory corporate HREDD obligation.Continue Reading Business and Human Rights: NGOs Set Out Key Considerations for EU Import Controls to Tackle Forced Labour

The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Sixth Assessment Report (“IPCC Report“), published on 9 August 2021, delivered the starkest warning to date that human activity is responsible for significant changes in the Earth’s climate.  The attention of the world’s scientific, political, and business communities, and of society at large, is increasingly focused

Section 54 of the UK Modern Slavery Act 2015 (MSA 2015) requires large businesses to produce a statement each year setting out the steps they have taken to ensure that their business and supply chains are slavery free, or a statement that they have taken no steps to do this. Legislative reform of some kind has been some time in the offing, particularly since the Government’s response in September last year to the 2019 “Transparency in supply chains consultation” (see our previous Legal Update).
Continue Reading UK Modern Slavery – a Bill to prohibit the “falsification” of slavery and human trafficking statements

The impact of climate change on human rights is considerable and complex.  Air pollution can contaminate the air we breathe; droughts can result in hunger and famine; floods can impact housing and access to potable water.  If it is indeed accepted that climate change has an impact on human rights, then by extension businesses will not be able to prevent adverse human rights impacts unless they integrate climate change into their human rights due diligence processes.

This imperative is being driven among other things by approaching mandatory human rights and environmental due diligence legislation (see our Blog posts here and here) and expanding reporting requirements on environmental and sustainability matters expand (see, for example, our Blog posts here, here and here).Continue Reading Business and Human Rights: The Environmental Dimension – climate change

In May 2021, the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) published a report setting out a series of tools investors can use to identify and address human rights risks, including modern slavery risks, in their portfolio companies.  The report includes a sectoral analysis of modern slavery rights in four sectors – Tourism, Construction, Food and Beverage, and Textile and Footwear – and adds to the growing toolkit of ESG-related resources available to investors (see, for example, our briefing Asset Managers: Mastering Non-Financial Risk – The Evolution of Human Rights Due Diligence).
Continue Reading Business and Human Rights – Analysing modern slavery risks in portfolio companies: practical considerations for investors

On 29 April 2021, the German Federal Constitutional Court published its groundbreaking ruling following several constitutional complaints against provisions of the German Federal Climate Change Act of 2019. In its order, the First Senate of the Constitutional Court held that the provisions determining national climate targets and the annual emission amounts allowed until 2030 are incompatible with fundamental rights insofar as they lack sufficient specifications for further emission reductions from 2031 onwards. The German legislator is now obliged to enact provisions by 31 December 2022 that specify in greater detail how the reduction targets for greenhouse gas emissions are to be adjusted after 2030.
Continue Reading ESG litigation: German Federal Constitutional Court rules that the German Federal Climate Change Act is partially unconstitutional

There have been two recent developments in the UK which further highlight the litigation risk for  international companies in respect of the activities of  their foreign subsidiaries. The UK is certainly not the only regime where there has been a notable increase in human rights related litigation but a distinct pattern is emerging.

PGI Group (PGI), a group of companies that operate in the agribusiness and renewable energy spaces, and its Malawian subsidiary, Lujeri Tea Estates Ltd (Lujeri), are facing a legal action in the UK High Court in connection with alleged systemic sexual abuse, including rape, sexual assault and discrimination, in Malawi.  Lujeri is a supplier to a number of known UK tea brands, including Typhoo, Yorkshire Tea and Tetley.  It is also a major supplier of macadamia nuts, which are grown in its Malawi orchards.

In the meantime, British American Tobacco (BAT) and Imperial Brands sought last month to strike out claims made against them and their subsidiaries by Malawian tobacco farmers, which were filed in the UK High Court last December.

These cases add to the growing list of companies to have faced legal claims in the UK courts in respect of the actions of their foreign subsidiaries (see our previous commentary on Camellia plc, Royal Dutch Shell plc and Vedanta Resources plc).  The cases also highlight the increasing litigation risk dynamic amid the growing trend of human rights and environmental litigation and underline the importance of UK companies taking steps to identify, prevent and mitigated human rights-related risks both in their own operations and also in the operations of their subsidiaries.
Continue Reading Business and Human Rights in the UK – Litigation Risk