Pillar Two's submission on Australian Government’s Consultation: Strengthening Australia’s response to modern slavery in supply chains

Introduction

Pillar Two is pleased to provide this submission to inform the Government’s consideration of proposed changes to the anti-modern slavery framework established by the MSA and related criminal laws. We support the goal of ensuring the MSA and related laws are as effective as possible in improving outcomes for vulnerable workers in Australian and offshore supply chains and commend the Government for its commitment to consultation on this issue.

Modern slavery involves serious criminal activity and it is appropriate that companies and individuals directly engaging in this conduct are subject to criminal penalties. As outlined in this submission, the Government’s proposal to further extend corporate criminal liability to certain situations of modern slavery in a company’s supply chain involves a range of complex considerations. These complexities reflect the nature of modern slavery in supply chains, which often occurs in contexts where the underlying conduct is perpetrated by third parties operating as part of a changeable and multifaceted web of commercial relationships with multiple buying companies across countries, and varying levels of visibility and leverage. In our view, these dynamics distinguish modern slavery from other domestic legislative ‘failure to prevent’ or related models, such as those addressing foreign bribery and sex discrimination, which focus primarily on conduct within companies’ operations.

We also consider there are risks that aspects of the Government’s proposed approach, which largely diverges from international regulatory trends relating to business and human rights, could lead to significant unintended consequences. In particular, our assessment is that the proposed offence could encourage companies to take a compliance-based approach focused on de-risking tier one of their supply chains, rather than taking a risk-based approach that seeks to proactively identify, mitigate and remediate their involvement in modern slavery throughout their entire supply chains in line with international standards. This could negatively impact on vulnerable workers deeper in Australian companies’ supply chains, who could be overlooked if companies focus on tier one risks. Encouraging companies to take a tier one focused and compliance-based approach could also disadvantage Australian companies competing in foreign markets where corporate customers, investors and regulatory frameworks may expect or require broader human rights-related risk management across the full supply chain, in line with where the greatest risks to people and the company are likely to be.

In our view, given these factors, it is important that careful consideration is given to whether assigning criminal responsibility to buying companies for certain situations of modern slavery in supply chains is the most practicable, enforceable or effective instrument to drive meaningful change. We recommend the Government further evaluates the strengths and limitations of the proposed criminal liability approach, including the potential unintended consequences outlined in this submission, alongside other models.

In particular, and drawing on our work with companies in Australia and around the world, we consider that establishing a modern slavery due diligence requirement through a civil law framework would be the most effective tool to drive better outcomes for vulnerable workers, further positive change in business practices and contribute to a consistent global regulatory framework. A due diligence requirement would, in essence, establish an ‘obligation of conduct’, whereby companies are required to take steps to assess and address modern slavery risks with the expectation that through this process they find and respond to instances of modern slavery in line with how closely connected they are to the harm. It would sit well alongside the current reporting requirement, not only encouraging but expecting robust communication as part of working to prevent and address any involvement in modern slavery in line with international standards.

In contrast to a due diligence requirement, the proposed criminal liability approach would establish an ‘obligation of result’, with companies potentially liable for having failed to prevent isolated instances of modern slavery without an appropriate focus on a systemic approach driving action and transparency. We encourage the Government to further consider scope for a due diligence requirement as part of a ‘smart mix’ of measures, either instead of, or in addition to, the proposed criminal liability approach.

Should Government progress legislative changes to enact a criminal liability approach, our view is that these would need to be carefully drafted to provide clarity for business and other stakeholders to achieve their stated aims, including to ensure alignment with core international standards including the UNGPs and the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises on Responsible Business Conduct (OECD Guidelines). We also strongly support further multi-stakeholder consultation on an Exposure Draft as part of designing the proposed offence.

Key considerations in constructing the proposed offence

Based on our experience working with large companies in Australia and globally, and engaging with civil society and other stakeholders, we have identified the following non-exhaustive list of considerations we believe should be addressed if the proposed criminal offence is to be effectively designed and implemented. Our analysis is based on what is currently proposed as the core components of the offence in the Government’s consultation paper released in August 2026 - Strengthening Australia’s legislative response to modern slavery in supply chains. (Consultation Paper)

Recognising barriers to enforceability

There are, in our view, likely to be substantial practical barriers to bringing a successful criminal prosecution under the proposed offence, in particular relating to the requirement that the underlying modern slavery is proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Modern slavery can be extremely difficult to uncover and verify, even in countries with effective institutions and an open civic space. Many Australian companies source from jurisdictions where these elements are not present or are significantly constrained, further complicating investigative efforts. There is also a question of what access the Australian Federal Police (AFP) may have to evidence relating to alleged offshore modern slavery conduct perpetrated by foreign entities supplying to Australian companies, even through established law enforcement cooperation avenues.

Difficulties can arise even in Australia on this front. In 2026, the Australian Institute of Criminology noted ‘investigating and prosecuting modern slavery cases is inherently complex’ and highlighted ‘structural and operational barriers to identifying and prosecuting [modern slavery] cases’. It found ‘around three-quarters of defendants referred for prosecution [in Australia] between 1999 and 2017 were not convicted of a modern slavery offence’. In our view, the same enforcement challenges would exist in relation to the proposed offence (with the potential for additional complexities as further elaborated below). These limitations may create a risk that the proposed offence would be rarely or never applied, calling into question its effectiveness as a tool to drive behavioural change.

Determining the nexus between modern slavery and a company’s supply chain by requiring a concrete connection to harm

It is important that companies are only exposed to criminal liability for conduct that occurs directly in the supply chain of a particular good or service they are procuring. This would help to ensure that the offence remains aligned with the UNGPs and OECD Guidelines. These standards are commonly used by Australian companies as the foundation of their modern slavery risk management approaches and are the basis of key overseas regulation some Australian companies are directly covered by or are otherwise working to follow to meet investor and customer expectations.

It also has key implications for what is realistically possible for a company to do to prevent and address its involvement in modern slavery. For example, a company sourcing branded uniforms from a textiles supplier made in Factory A should not be liable for exploitive practices perpetrated by the same supplier in Factory B which makes uniforms which are not purchased by the company. Under the UNGPs, the buying company would not be considered directly linked to the exploitative practices at Factory B (or indeed to have caused or contributed to harm by Factory B just by virtue of sourcing from Factory A). In turn, it would not be expected to take action in relation to the harm (although such allegations may inform due diligence related to the supplier and Factory A). This recognises that there would generally not be the ability to build or use leverage to effect change in relation to harm at a facility that a company is not sourcing from, and that a concrete connection of a company to human rights harm is needed as part of a principled, pragmatic and sustainable approach to preventing and addressing that harm. If a company was considered ‘involved’ in harm in these situations, the potential scope of due diligence that a company may be required to do may well become unmanageable.

Avoiding duplication by not applying the proposed offence to situations where companies cause modern slavery

The current modern slavery-related offences in Divisions 270 and 271 of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) (Criminal Code) apply to bodies corporate as well as natural persons. Where a company in scope of the proposed offence engages in modern slavery (i.e. causes modern slavery), we understand the company would already be exposed to criminal liability under these existing offences.1 We therefore query whether situations where a company causes modern slavery would need to be included within the scope of the proposed new offence, as this conduct is already criminalised (noting this would depend to an extent on how causation was defined under the proposed offence).

Addressing limitations to which parts of the supply chain are within scope of the offence

Modern slavery risks can occur throughout the full extent of the supply chain and may be more likely and severe below tier one. However, the proposed second nexus (that the corporation caused, contributed, facilitated or enabled the exploitation) may in practice limit the offence’s scope to tier one suppliers. In reality, it is most likely that ‘causing’ or ‘contributing’ to modern slavery would occur in direct (tier one) commercial relationships.

There are unintended consequences to this situation outlined in the next section which in our view are crucial to address. In particular, we consider that the most appropriate way of driving due diligence beyond tier one of the supply chain is through a modern slavery due diligence requirement instead of, or in addition to, a criminal offence.

We do not think the appropriate response would be to broaden the nexus to situations of direct linkage to harm. While we consider that a criminal offence is appropriate for corporate conduct that has played a significant role in modern slavery harm (discussed further in the next section), we do not believe that criminal liability should extend to circumstances where there is a lesser form of involvement (e.g. direct linkage situations) as this would mean holding a corporation criminally liable for the actions of independent third parties beyond their practical capacity to control or otherwise prevent.

Clarifying types of corporate conduct in scope of the offence

As noted above, the Consultation Paper indicates that the concept of contribution (or related concepts such as facilitating or enabling) could be used as part of the proposed offence to establish a nexus between the company and the established modern slavery. These terms appear to have been taken from the ‘continuum of involvement’ articulated by the UNGPs. The continuum, which is referenced extensively in the Government’s official guidance for the MSA, provides that companies may cause, contribute to, or be directly linked to adverse human rights impacts such as modern slavery and that the appropriate action they should take in response depends on their identified level of involvement. The consultation paper indicates that the concept of contribution (or related concepts such as facilitate or enable) could be used as part of the proposed offence to establish a nexus.

A key challenge is that the continuum of involvement was not developed as a framework to support the application of criminal liability and concepts such as ‘contribution’ involve a degree of subjectivity that limit their utility in a criminal law context. The UNGPs recognise the connection between ‘contribution’ and ‘complicity’. However, the UNGPs also note that there are non-legal and legal meanings of complicity and the view taken in development of the UNGPs was that ‘contribution’ in the UNGPs should be distinguished from legal tests of complicity. ‘Contribution’ in the UNGPs is therefore generally seen as a more fluid concept to prompt companies to prevent and address a broader range of conduct including in connection with business partners and other third parties.

There is currently also uncertainty in the Consultation Paper with references to different formulations of contribution (i.e. significant v material contribution) with further potential uncertainty for what types of contribution would lead to liability and what steps a company could reasonably put in place to avoid such contribution as a result.

We consider that any criminal offence should be confined to circumstances where a corporation could reasonably have exercised a substantial degree of influence over, or control of, the conduct giving rise to the harm. In this regard, concepts akin to legal complicity may provide a useful framework for establishing an appropriate connection between the corporation and the underlying conduct for the purposes of a criminal offence rather than ‘contribution’. These would still need to be distinguished from the current offences in the Criminal Code relating to complicity in the commission of modern slavery to avoid duplication.

If it is the Government’s preference to use the continuum of involvement as the basis for the nexus we recommend a clearer and more defined construct, more akin to a test that establishes that the company’s contribution to the harm was so significant that without the relevant contributing act or omission it is unlikely the harm would have occurred, or have occurred to the same extent.

In line with our comments above in relation to application of the offence beyond tier one of the supply chain, we do not think it would be appropriate to remove a nexus from the offence altogether, whereby a company could potentially be criminally liable for any occurrence of modern slavery in its supply chain, even where it has not caused or contributed to the conduct. Rather, we support a modern slavery due diligence requirement alongside or instead of an offence if the aim is to pursue broader levels of involvement in harm.

Evaluating if recklessness would be an appropriate fault element

It will be important to ensure that the relevant fault element balances incentivising companies to undertake appropriate modern slavery due diligence in their supply chains, while also ensuring that criminal liability is only imposed in situations where a company’s actions or omissions in relation to the underlying modern slavery justify criminal consequences (and recognising that the modern slavery will have been perpetrated by a supplier not the relevant company being prosecuted).

Absolute or strict liability would help to focus on prevention and risk management and avoids the evidentiary challenges of proving the company’s state of mind; however, it will require that the reasonable steps defence be very clearly defined to support certainty.

Negligence when combined with well-defined reasonable steps may support a meaningful distinction between companies that have genuinely worked to implement reasonable steps and those that have not; however, it may drive a compliance-based approach to due diligence rather than the broader risk-based approach that international standards expect.

Recklessness may provide greater certainty and focus criminal liability on companies that consciously disregard serious modern slavery concerns; however it may also mean that only the most egregious cases are in scope and may also have the unintended consequence of discouraging due diligence (i.e. ‘strategic ignorance’).

Another consideration to bear in mind is that the concept of ‘contribution’ does incorporate some elements of negligence and recklessness already and therefore how that is defined may have a bearing on what fault element is needed.

As noted above, we consider that consultation on an exposure draft, to allow consideration of the fault element alongside the details of the proposed offence and defence, will be important.

Defining the reasonable steps defence and their relevance to the underlying offence

There is an inherent tension between an offence of ‘causing’ or ‘contributing’ to harm with a defence of ‘reasonable steps’. The conceptual basis of a reasonable steps defence is that, despite the occurrence of the harm, the company exercised appropriate due diligence and took proportionate measures to prevent it. However, where there is sufficient evidence that a company’s own actions, omissions or other practices have caused or contributed to the exploitation, it may be difficult to reconcile such conduct with a finding that the company’s preventative systems and controls were reasonable. That is, the fact that modern slavery occurred as a result of (or through a contribution of) the company’s conduct is likely to indicate a failure in governance, risk management or other due diligence processes. While a reasonable steps defence may be appropriate where a company is directly linked to modern slavery through complex business relationships over which it has limited control or influence, its application is less compelling where the company has caused or contributed to the harm, especially where contribution is defined as playing a significant role in the harm. Accordingly, if the reasonable steps defence is seeking to encourage robust modern slavery due diligence, further consideration needs to be given to the construct of the offence.

To help illustrate this point, one example that can be given of where a company may contribute to harm in its supply chain is where its purchasing practices are such that they incentivise (or otherwise contribute) to exploitation of the supplier’s workers – such as where delivery deadlines or prices are not reasonable and the company knows this may lead to exploitation. It is difficult to then see how the reasonable steps defence could be established in this situation.

Recognising challenges around defining scope for a safe harbour or deferred prosecution agreement for companies that disclose identifying modern slavery

The Consultation Paper suggests Government is considering scope for deferred prosecution agreements, which may ‘provide an opportunity for companies to identify and report modern slavery related issues proactively.’ We also understand Government may be open to exploring scope for some form of safe harbour scheme for companies that proactively disclose identifying modern slavery.

In this context, we note that current modern slavery reporting suggests large Australian companies operating in higher risk sectors such as horticulture and fashion are likely to identify a significant volume of modern slavery red flags relating to their supply chains annually. For example, a company with a robust social audit program may identify several hundred instances annually of supply chain issues such as worker underpayment, excessive hours, and charging of recruitment fees. The company is unlikely to be in a position to assess these to a legal standard for each audit finding to enable it to decide which matters to disclose to Government in order to access any safe harbour protections. This may complicate the extent to which companies are able to proactively report modern slavery issues to Government, with any company reporting also likely to involve substantial time and resourcing costs to companies (including legal fees) and to Government.

We also note that the effectiveness of deferred prosecution agreements in driving change on the ground for vulnerable workers may also be uncertain. Deferred prosecution agreements may provide a tool for an Australian buying company to formally commit to ceasing any actions or omissions that may be contributing to the identified modern slavery occurring in supply chains. However, it is important to underscore that these agreements may not be able to ensure the underlying modern slavery harm is actually remediated. This is because, in many instances, the buying company is likely to be one of multiple companies contributing to the modern slavery and may not have the individual leverage with the supplier to ensure remediation occurs. This is especially likely to be the case where the other companies sourcing from the supplier are not Australian companies and so are outside the scope of the proposed criminal offence. Where multiple Australian companies are sourcing from the same supplier engaging in modern slavery conduct, we recommend the Government allow for scope to include multiple or all companies in the deferred prosecution agreement where these companies are genuinely committed to addressing the issue. This would help to avoid situations where only the company that reports first receives protection under the deferred prosecution scheme.

Potential unintended consequences

In our view, there is a risk the proposed offence could result in a range of unintended consequences. These consequences reflect the risk that the introduction of the offence may shift companies’ focus from finding, disclosing and remediating modern slavery to minimising their exposure to criminal liability. We recommend Government carefully consider the potential ramifications of these challenges should they arise, as well as the extent to which it may or may not be able to mitigate them.

We also note that, in our view, the unintended consequences below would be unlikely to arise if the Government instead pursued a modern slavery due diligence requirement. Should the Government choose to pursue the proposed criminal liability approach, implementing a due diligence requirement alongside the criminal offence could also help to mitigate some of the unintended consequences below by helping ensure companies are expected to continue to take a risk-based approach to due diligence aligned with international standards and report transparently under the MSA. If Government takes this approach it would be important that the due diligence requirement establishes a clear framework for companies to address and be transparent about all levels of involvement in modern slavery risks, not just risks they may cause or to which they may contribute.

Lack of alignment with current and emerging regulatory approaches internationally, in our region and domestically

Internationally, there is a clear trend towards mandatory due diligence laws (including where an implicit or explicit expectation to undertake due diligence is incorporated into forced labour import / export bans) as a key legislative tool to drive corporate action to address human rights harms associated with their business activities and relationships, including modern slavery. In addition to legislative instruments in major jurisdictions such as the EU, a number of countries in the Asia-Pacific region are reportedly actively working to establish mandatory human rights due diligence frameworks, including Indonesia and Thailand.

Australian companies are exposed to these changing laws directly (such as where they operate in these jurisdictions) and indirectly (such as where they sell to corporate customers in these jurisdictions). It is unclear how the proposed criminal offence might interact with evolving global and regional due diligence frameworks, including due to the challenges outlined below. In particular, as noted above, the proposed offence could detract from Australian companies’ ability to comply with these overseas regulations by encouraging a focus on de-risking supply chains and engagement with tier one suppliers rather than promoting a robust and risk based due diligence approach that encompasses modern slavery risks across the full supply chain.

The design of overseas legislative due diligence models also appears to encourage a level of stakeholder engagement, including with rightsholders, that may not be achieved through the proposed criminal offence. Domestically, as noted by the New South Wales Anti-Slavery Commissioner in his submission, there is also a risk the proposed criminal offence would negatively impact the reasonable steps framework in place at state-level in New South Wales.

Potential ‘chilling’ of company disclosures about identifying modern slavery

Significant time and resources have been invested by Government, civil society and business groups in Australia since 2018 to encourage companies to be transparent about modern slavery risks and incidents they identify in their supply chains. While the overall number of company disclosures of actual modern slavery incidents remain limited, there appears to have been a modest increase in major Australian companies proactively disclosing where they have identified situations of severe labour exploitation and, in most cases, explaining their response. Anecdotally, some civil society, investors and even media outlets have reacted positively to these disclosures and seen them, where appropriate responses have been taken, as an indication that modern slavery risk management programmes are working as intended. In turn these positive third party responses can provide leverage to internal company teams as they may be able to use them to make the case for more resourcing for these programmes, given ‘doing and finding more’ rather than ‘doing and finding less’ may be seen as more beneficial for long term risk management.

In our view, there is a risk that this level of transparency could be permanently and significantly undermined by the proposed offence. This is because, if implemented, the proposed offence would effectively mean that companies disclosing they have found modern slavery make themselves a potential target for enforcement action. While it is possible the proposed offence could include safe harbour or other protections to support disclosure such as through deferred prosecution agreements, these schemes would likely be complex to implement and involve a number of uncertainties and practical challenges as outlined above.

Potential ‘chilling’ of collaboration between business and civil society

Collaboration between business and civil society (including workers’ representatives) can be key to effectively identifying and remediating modern slavery. For example, a company that identifies modern slavery practices in its supply chain may engage an NGO on the ground to help it engage with affected workers and facilitate remediation.

We consider that the proposed offence could increase the barriers to businesses engaging with civil society due to real or perceived concerns that the civil society group could provide sensitive information to Australian authorities to support a criminal investigation. While the provision of information to authorities may be warranted, including where civil society groups are acting in good faith and do not believe a business is effectively avoiding or mitigating a potential contribution to modern slavery, there would still potentially be a chilling effect on key partnerships between business and civil society, including around root causes of modern slavery.

It is possible that these dynamics might also arise in relation to business collaboration with other businesses, particularly if any deferred prosecution agreement scheme or safe harbour protections only apply to the first business to report the conduct.

Potential shift from a risk based approach to a focus on tier one suppliers

For many Australian companies, their greatest exposure to modern slavery risk lies below their tier one suppliers – to which as noted above they will most likely be ‘directly linked’, rather than ‘cause’ or ‘contribute’. For example, this includes the use of subcontracted services by head contractors in sectors such as cleaning or construction, and manufacturing by sub-supplier factories in sectors such as electronics and fashion. It is critical that Australian companies engage with suppliers below tier one of their supply chain to address these modern slavery risks and this has been a key focus area during the implementation of the MSA. It is also what is expected under international standards.

If a criminal offence is introduced that focuses on ‘cause’ and ‘contribute’, and no accompanying modern slavery due diligence requirement is also introduced that extends to being involved in harm through ‘direct linkage’, companies may be incentivised to focus due diligence efforts on their tier one suppliers even though that is unlikely to be where modern slavery is most likely to occur. Due diligence efforts may also focus on mitigating any potential risk of ‘contribution’ through a supplier relationship (e.g. as a result of scrutiny on dialogue around purchasing practices including timeline pressures) rather than focusing on understanding and mitigating the actual modern slavery risks – which in practice might amount to promoting less rather than more engagement with suppliers which could ultimately have supported risk identification and management. In extreme cases, boards and other senior leaders may even support the removal or dilution of current internal resources dedicated to taking a risk-based approach beyond tier one, as this may no longer be seen as a priority.

These dynamics would impact Australian companies’ ability to manage their most significant risks of involvement in harm – most likely beyond tier one – in line with the UNGPs and OECD Guidelines alongside relevant regulatory requirements and evolving external stakeholder expectations (including again from customers and investors) in other jurisdictions. There is a possibility too that Australian companies could be subject to more complaints under the OECD Guidelines through the Australian National Contact Point for failing to conduct broader due diligence. While this could be seen as a complementary accountability mechanism and use of the mechanism for good faith complaints about failure to adhere to the OECD Guidelines is to be encouraged, difficulties could arise where companies believe that the offence has hampered rather than supported them to conduct broader due diligence.

We note that this is one of the unintended consequences we believe is most likely to be mitigated by introducing a modern slavery due diligence requirement alongside an offence. As noted above, a modern slavery due diligence requirement would require efforts to prevent and address involvement in modern slavery across a company’s entire supply chain using a risk-based approach.

Potential increase in onerous requirements for tier one suppliers as part of blanket rather than risk-based approaches

As outlined above, the focus of the proposed offence on conduct to which a company has caused or contributed (or facilitated / enabled), will likely mean that companies concentrate their risk management efforts on tier one suppliers. As the proposed offence establishes criminal rather than civil liability, our view is that companies may take a blanket approach to managing tier one supplier risks rather than a risk-based approach in order to mitigate any exposure to criminal liability to the fullest extent possible. In particular, we consider some companies are likely to seek to rely on detailed and onerous contractual obligations with suppliers implemented as a blanket approach as a means to demonstrate that they have taken steps to avoid any risk of contribution. This could result in a significant compliance burden for suppliers and could also undermine efforts by stakeholders such as the New South Wales Anti-Slavery Commissioner to promote a risk-based and ‘shared responsibility’ approach to contracting.

Potential consolidation of supply chains away from small and medium enterprises (SMEs) Companies may see SMEs as higher risk for modern slavery due to real or perceived capacity and maturity gaps in these entities’ capacity to manage modern slavery risks. For example, SME’s may have less visibility of, and leverage over, their sub-suppliers deeper in the supply chain. This may result in situations where buying companies seek to reduce their real or perceived exposure to criminal liability by sourcing from larger suppliers that they perceive to be better able to manage (and demonstrate management of) modern slavery risks. Buying companies may also seek to reduce the overall number of entities in their supply chain to manage their exposure to potential modern slavery risks. As noted below, this could include a move away from local suppliers considered higher risk to offshore suppliers, which could particularly affect Australian SMEs.

Potential focus on conduct occurring within Australia rather than offshore

Companies are exposed to modern slavery risks within Australia and offshore and it is important companies work to address modern slavery risks in both these contexts. In our view, there is a risk that the application of the proposed offence will focus primarily on modern slavery conduct occurring in Australia due to likely difficulties investigating such conduct offshore. As outlined above, modern slavery-related offences are complex to investigate, as evidenced by the comparatively low number of successful prosecutions bought in Australia to date against individual offenders. These complexities are often heightened when modern slavery conduct occurs offshore. For example, where alleged modern slavery occurs offshore, the AFP may experience difficulties identifying and accessing witnesses, locating suspected offenders, and obtaining documentary evidence. Practically, this dynamic may mean any criminal investigations in connection with the proposed offence focus on alleged modern slavery within Australian supply chains. This could result in a two-tiered system where companies with more significant risks in their onshore supply chains face enforcement action, while peers with similar or greater risks in offshore supply chains do not.

Potential shift from sourcing from higher risk domestic suppliers to sourcing from offshore suppliers

As noted above, there are likely evidentiary difficulties associated with successfully prosecuting the offence in relation to offshore conduct compared to conduct occurring in Australia, including limitations on the AFP’s ability to meaningfully investigate conduct occurring in overseas jurisdictions. This may mean that some companies perceive their exposure to criminal lability will be lower if they source a high-risk product (such as horticulture products) from offshore, rather than domestic Australian suppliers.

In some cases, companies may also seek to shift their sourcing from certain higher risk geographies internationally to other geographies seen as potentially lower risk, rather than working with existing suppliers in the higher risk locations to better manage the risks. This could have implications for vulnerable workers and the viability of suppliers’ business in these geographies, potentially harming the workers the reforms are intended to protect.