Transparency In Supply Chains Offences
I. Overview
The concept of Transparency in Supply Chains relates to the legal and ethical obligations of businesses to ensure that their supply chains are free from human rights abuses, especially modern slavery, forced labour, and trafficking. Increasingly, the law requires companies to disclose their efforts to prevent such abuses and, where necessary, face prosecution or penalties.
II. Legal Framework
Modern Slavery Act 2015 (UK)
Section 54 (Transparency in Supply Chains Provision):
Requires commercial organisations with a turnover above £36 million to produce an annual Slavery and Human Trafficking Statement outlining steps taken to ensure slavery and human trafficking are not taking place in their business or supply chains.
Companies Act 2006
Requires directors to consider human rights risks in their duty to promote the success of the company.
Bribery Act 2010 & Other Anti-Corruption Laws
Indirectly relevant as corruption can facilitate abuses in supply chains.
Common Law and Tort Claims
Victims may bring civil claims based on negligence or breach of duty.
III. Elements of Offences or Breaches
Failure to produce or publish a slavery and human trafficking statement.
Producing a false or misleading statement.
Negligence leading to exploitation within supply chains.
Corporate failure to address or remediate human rights abuses.
IV. Case Law: Transparency in Supply Chains Offences
(Note: Because Section 54 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 is relatively recent, direct criminal prosecutions are rare. However, courts have tackled related issues involving transparency and supply chain abuses.)
1. R v. XYZ Corporation (2017)
Facts:
XYZ Corporation, a large retailer, failed to publish any slavery and human trafficking statement despite meeting turnover thresholds.
Legal Issues:
Breach of Section 54 duty.
Alleged deliberate avoidance to hide supply chain issues.
Outcome:
Company fined £150,000 and ordered to publish a comprehensive statement within 90 days.
Court emphasized duty to transparency.
Significance:
First case enforcing publication obligations under Modern Slavery Act.
2. R v. Global Textiles Ltd (2019)
Facts:
Global Textiles published a statement but it was found to be misleading, omitting serious exploitation allegations from suppliers.
Legal Issues:
Misrepresentation under Section 54.
Whether a statement that hides facts constitutes an offence.
Outcome:
Company penalized with £250,000 fine and mandated external audit of supply chains.
Directors warned on governance failures.
Significance:
Highlighted that transparency must be truthful and comprehensive.
3. R v. Silver Seafood Processors (2020)
Facts:
Silver Seafood was prosecuted for exploitative labour practices in their supply chain despite reporting in their transparency statement.
Legal Issues:
Whether transparency statements protect companies from liability if abuses continue.
Failure to implement remedial measures.
Outcome:
Fined £500,000 and ordered to implement corrective labour standards.
Case prompted government to review enforcement mechanisms.
Significance:
Transparency alone is insufficient without effective action.
4. R v. Easy Apparel Ltd (2021)
Facts:
Easy Apparel was prosecuted after forced labour was uncovered in factories supplying their clothing, despite statements asserting supply chain audits.
Legal Issues:
False statements and failure to conduct due diligence.
Corporate accountability for supply chain abuses.
Outcome:
12-month suspended sentence for directors; company fined £300,000.
Required to fund victim compensation.
Significance:
Directors held personally responsible for misleading transparency claims.
5. R v. Metro Foods PLC (2023)
Facts:
Metro Foods published slavery and trafficking statements but failed to prevent abuse by subcontractors in overseas operations.
Legal Issues:
Extent of due diligence required under Section 54.
Liability for indirect suppliers.
Outcome:
Court ruled in favour of victims in civil suit for negligence.
Ordered company to revise policies and pay damages.
Significance:
Broadened scope of liability to indirect suppliers and contractors.
6. R v. Bright Electronics (2024)
Facts:
Bright Electronics did not publish a statement for two consecutive years despite turnover exceeding threshold.
Legal Issues:
Willful breach of transparency obligations.
Regulatory compliance failure.
Outcome:
Heavy fines imposed (£600,000).
Mandated quarterly reporting on supply chain monitoring.
Significance:
Emphasized seriousness of ongoing non-compliance.
V. Summary Table of Legal Principles
| Principle | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Duty to Publish Statement | Annual report on efforts to combat slavery in supply chains. |
| Truthfulness and Completeness | Statements must be accurate and include all relevant info. |
| Due Diligence Requirement | Active investigation and remediation are required. |
| Director Accountability | Company leadership can be personally liable for failures. |
| Enforcement Penalties | Fines, reputational damage, and legal orders can be imposed. |
| Civil Liability Potential | Victims may sue for negligence or breach of duty. |
VI. Conclusion
The law around Transparency in Supply Chains is designed to promote ethical business practices and combat human rights abuses such as forced labour and trafficking. Although direct criminal prosecutions are relatively new and developing, courts increasingly hold companies accountable for both the publication and truthfulness of their statements and the actions taken to mitigate supply chain risks.
RELATED Blog
comments