Using the risk-based approach to curb modern slavery in the supply chain
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose This paper aims to critically examine the modern slavery statements of Anglo American Plc. and Marks and Spencer Group Plc. to determine the level of effectiveness of the risk assessment and risk mitigation measures of both companies and provide recommendations on how the risk assessment and risk mitigation measures of both companies could be strengthened. Design/methodology/approach The analysis took the form of a desk study, which analysed various documents and reports such as the UK Modern Slavery Act 2015, the UK Modern Slavery Act 2015 (Transparency in Supply Chains) Regulations 2015, the UK Guidance issued under Section 54(9) of the Modern Slavery Act 2015, the 2018 Global Slavery Index, funded by Forrest’s Walk Free Foundation, the Anglo American Plc. Modern Slavery Statement of 2017/18, the Marks and Spencer Modern Slavery Statement of 2017/18, the Financial Action Task Force Guidance on the Risk Based Approach to Combating Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing (High Level Principles and Procedures) 2007, the Financial Action Task Force International Standards On Combating Money Laundering and the Financing of Terrorism and Proliferation (The FATF Recommendations) 2012, the Australia Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Rules Instrument 2007 (No. 1) (as amended), the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada Guidance on the risk-based approach to combatting money laundering and terrorist financing 2017 and the Central Bank of Nigeria (Anti-Money Laundering and Combating the Financing of Terrorism in Banks and Other Financial Institutions in Nigeria) Regulations, 2013. Findings This paper determined that the standard due diligence measures and the enhanced due diligence measures of Anglo American Plc. are not effective enough to identify/assess the risk(s) of modern slavery in the supply chains reason being that Anglo American Plc. does not use diverse methods/methodologies for her due diligence programme. This paper, however, determined that the standard due diligence measures and the enhanced due diligence measures of Marks and Spencer Group Plc. are effective enough to identify/assess the risk(s) of modern slavery in the supply chains because Marks and Spencer adopts diverse methods/methodologies for her due diligence programme. This paper also determined that both Anglo American Plc. and Marks and Spencer Group Plc. adopt diverse methods for the monitoring of their corrective action plans which are designed to mitigate the modern slavery risk(s) associated with high-risk suppliers. For example, Anglo American Plc. monitors anti-modern slavery compliance with the use of both internal Anglo American teams and third-party auditors to ensure that the identified issues are adequately addressed. Research limitations/implications This paper focuses on Section 54 of the UK Modern Slavery Act 2015 and the Modern Slavery Statements of Anglo American Plc. and Marks and Spencer Group Plc for the year 2017/18. Originality/value Several articles have been published on this topic. Among them, is an article by Stefan Gold, Alexander Trautrims and Zoe Trodd titled “Modern slavery challenges to supply chain management”, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal , Vol. 20 Issue: 5, pp.485-494 and an article by Stephen John New titled “Modern slavery and the supply chain: the limits of corporate social responsibility?”, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal , Vol. 20 Issue: 6, pp.697-707. The article by Stefan Gold, Alexander Trautrims and Zoe Trodd drew attention to the challenges modern slavery poses to supply chain management. Although the article briefly talked about the risk-based approach to monitoring supply chains for slavery, it did not discuss about the due diligence measures that UK firms are required to apply during risk identification and risk assessment, and the risk mitigation measures that will address the risk(s) that have been identified. The article by Stephen John New examines legal attempts to encourage supply chain transparency and the use of corporate social responsibility methods. Though the article mentions the UK Modern Slavery Act 2015, more attention was paid to the California Transparency in Supply Chains Act [S.B. 657], State of California, 2010), enacted in 2011 and in effect from 2012. The article analysed the California Act without critically discussing the risk assessment procedures for UK companies. In addition to discussing the different stages of the risk assessment/risk management process, this paper will examine the modern slavery statements of Anglo American Plc. and Marks and Spencer Group Plc. This paper will provide recommendations on how the risk assessment/risk mitigation measures of both companies could be strengthened. This is the only paper to adopt this kind of approach. The analysis/recommendations in this paper will help UK companies to design effective due diligence procedures for their supply chain.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it