FTSE 100 & the UK Modern Slavery Act: From Disclosure to Action 02 FTSE 100 & the UK Modern Slavery Act: Table of Contents 03 Executive summary ▌ Key findings ▌ Key recommendations 06 FTSE 100 Ranking 09 Introduction ▌ Policy developments 11 UK Modern Slavery Act 12 Methodology ▌ Review and revision ▌ Assessment ▌ Minimum requirements 14 Structure, Business & Supply Chains 15 Policies in Relation to Slavery & Trafficking 16 Due Diligence Process 18 Risk Assessment & Management 20 Effectiveness 21 Training 22 Wider trends ▌ Compliance with Section 54 of the MSA ▌ Gaps in reporting ▌ Business model 24 From mandatory transparency to mandatory due diligence 25 Conclusion 26 Recommendations ▌ UK Government ▌ Companies ▌ Investors From Disclosure to Action 03 Executive summary Modern slavery and human trafficking are now the second largest criminal industry in the world. The Global Slavery Index estimates there are 16 million victims of forced labour in the private sector. It is an uncomfortable truth that many of the goods and services sold by companies every day are produced by workers who suffer the most severe exploitation. In 2015, the UK Government introduced the Modern Slavery Act (MSA), which requires certain companies publish an annual statement detailing what steps they have taken to tackle modern slavery, both in their operations and in their supply chains. Business & Human Rights Resource Centre has tracked companies’ reporting every year since, and our findings show that the MSA has failed to deliver the transformational change many hoped for. Three years on, most companies still publish generic statements committing to fight modern slavery, without explaining how. Sadly, only a handful of leading companies have demonstrated a genuine effort in their reporting to identify and mitigate risks. (For our 2018 key findings see page 4.) The lack of progress has been noted by Parliamentarians, the Independent AntiSlavery Commissioner, and investors. This report is our third annual assessment of transparency statements by the FTSE 100 under the MSA (see 2016 report and 2017 report). Our findings from last year’s report were used by the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner, Rathbone Investment Management, and CCLA Investment Management, to engage with companies which failed to meet MSA requirements or which performed poorly. There are many reasons why the FTSE 100 are worthy of scrutiny. As the largest companies in the UK, the FTSE 100 should provide leadership and help lift standards at an industry level. If even a handful of these companies exposed the brutal exploitation in their own supply chains and publicly committed to fixing the problem, it would end business-as-usual and bring about more responsible practices. The FTSE 100 companies also procure goods and services from many of the small-to-medium sized companies covered by the MSA. The FTSE 100 can use their leverage as valued customers to improve their suppliers’ efforts to tackle modern slavery. Government can also play a stronger role, by creating a public registry of companies required to disclose their anti-modern slavery measures, modelled on the Gender Pay Gap register, and imposing financial penalties on companies which fail to report or take no steps. Investors should also make modern slavery a priority in corporate governance, while leading companies can help laggards make improvements. (For our key recommendations see page 5.) In 2018, as in our previous assessments, the action reported by companies varied greatly, with only a small cluster of leaders standing out. Marks & Spencer, Diageo, Morrisons, Sainsbury’s, British American Tobacco, Tesco, Burberry, Vodafone, Unilever, BT, Kingfisher and National Grid scored highest; their reporting showed they understood their risks and had a commitment to addressing them. Their statements reflected better action and provided detailed disclosure. This leadership group remains largely the same as last year with the addition of Kingfisher and National Grid which provided much more detailed statements this year. At the other end, Evraz, Paddy Power Betfair, Melrose Industries, Rightmove, Ferguson, and GVC Holdings provided weak statements, offering little or no information on the six reporting areas. These statements changed very little from year to year and did not show progress on understanding their modern slavery risks. These poor performing companies are far from alone: the average overall score was only 31%. 04 FTSE 100 & the UK Modern Slavery Act: Over half of the FTSE 100 scored below this figure, and 28 companies scored fewer than 20%. This is all the more disappointing as it represents little change from our previous assessments. This year, one clear area of improvement is compliance with the minimum requirements set out by the MSA, (statements must be signed by director, approved by board and available on the company’s homepage). This year, 93 companies met the requirements, compared with only half of the companies last year. A higher proportion of companies also: reported having policies related to modern slavery; reported including modern slavery in social audits; reported having conducted a risk assessment to identify modern slavery risks in their supply chains; disclosed results from audits or assessments; reported providing capacity building and training to employees and suppliers. While we welcome these improvements, there is still a lack of detail in reporting; companies state they have taken a certain action but do not explain their process. We would also expect to see greater progress by more companies after three years of reporting. Companies themselves recognise that a level playing field has not been achieved. Consumer-facing companies are subject to greater scrutiny and are expected to demonstrate a strong commitment to fighting modern slavery, while their lesser-known peers can get away with publishing weak statements, or not publishing at all. However, the MSA review currently being undertaken by the UK Government (with an interim report due out in November) may well result in stricter requirements on companies under Section 54. Companies should be aware that their inaction on modern slavery is only serving to illustrate to policy makers the need for stronger enforcement measures. Corporate leaders are increasingly being called upon to use their positions as strategic stewards to prioritise modern slavery. Government regulation alone cannot change corporate behavior; business leaders must also acknowledge that corporate culture create a hostile environment for workers. The time for inaction is running out. Key findings: The higher socring companies are Marks & Spencer, Diageo, Morrisons, Sainsbury’s, British | American Tobacco, Tesco, Burberry, Vodafone, Unilever, BT, Kingfisher, and National Grid. These companies reported taking stronger action on the following than their peers on the following: assessing their supply chains for modern slavery risks, disclosing some detail about the risks that were identified and disclosing incidents where indicators of modern slavery were identified in their supply chains. However, no company scored above 78%. Kingfisher, National Grid, and Pearson The companies with statements which showed | improved the most in this year’s assessment. | little evidence of meaningful action are Evraz, These companies provided much more Paddy Power Betfair, Melrose Industries, disclosure than in previous years, doubling and Rightmove, Ferguson, GVC Holdings. These tripling the length of their statements and using companies provided little or no information in maps, graphs and charts which provided a any of the six reporting areas. Some of these more detailed explanation of their practices and statements did not show substantive change policies to address modern slavery. from the previous year. From Disclosure to Action 05 The weakest reporting area was measuring 93 companies met the minimum requirements, a | effectiveness of efforts to address modern | significant improvement from last year when only slavery. This was also the lowest scoring 47 companies met the these requirements. Of reporting area in our previous assessments. the companies that did not meet the minimum About 35% of companies provided little or requirements, 3 statements did not explicitly say no disclosure in this area. However, this is an they were approved by the Board (or equivalent) improvement, down from 50% of companies last and 2 statements were not signed by a director year. (or equivalent). 1 company failed to provide a link to their statement on their website’s homepage. Key recommendations: UK Government should ▌ Institute mandatory requirements for companies ▌ Enforce the MSA by imposing impactful to conduct human rights due diligence as set financial penalties where: out in our report on mandatory due diligence. ▌ Companies fail to publish a ▌ Monitor compliance with the MSA modern slavery statement. ▌ Establish a central registry of statements, ▌ Companies report they have taken no steps. similar to the Gender Pay Gap register. ▌ Engage closely with key stakeholders on ▌ Publishing a list of the companies how to strengthen the MSA and incorporate required to report. recommendations from the Home Office review. Companies should ▌ Carry out human rights due diligence which includes direct engagement with key stakeholders whose knowledge of the local operating context can help identify risks. ▌ Disclose the modern slavery risks which are identified in their operations and supply chains. ▌