Skip to content
GT
⚖️ Human Rights Due Diligence
Back to course
Regulatory LandscapeLesson 4 of 47 min readUK Modern Slavery Act (2015), Australian MSA (2018), Norway Transparency Act (2022)

Transparency Laws: UK MSA, Australian MSA, Norway TAA

Transparency Laws: UK MSA, Australian MSA, and Norway Transparency Act

Transparency laws occupy a distinct position in the spectrum of mandatory human rights legislation. Unlike the CSDDD or the German LkSG, which mandate substantive due diligence processes and carry significant penalties for non-compliance, transparency laws primarily require large companies to disclose what they are doing - or not doing - to address modern slavery and human rights risks in their operations and supply chains. The theory of change is that public accountability will drive improvement: investors, consumers, civil society, and workers will use disclosed information to reward better performers and pressure laggards. Whether this theory holds in practice is hotly debated.

UK Modern Slavery Act 2015

Section 54 of the UK Modern Slavery Act 2015 requires commercial organisations with an annual turnover of at least GBP 36 million that supply goods or services in the UK to publish an annual modern slavery statement. The statement must cover the organisation's structure, business, and supply chains; its policies in relation to slavery and human trafficking; due diligence processes; risk assessment; key performance indicators; and training provided to staff.

Crucially, the Act does not mandate that companies have any of these policies, processes, or training programmes. A company can lawfully comply by stating that it has taken no steps whatsoever to address modern slavery risks. The legal obligation is only to be transparent about what has or has not been done.

Statements must be approved by the board of directors (or equivalent) and signed by a director, and must be published on a prominent link on the company's homepage. From 2021, companies are required to submit their statements to a government registry.

Who Is Covered by the UK MSA Section 54?

Any commercial organisation that: (1) supplies goods or services in the UK; (2) carries on a business, or part of a business, in the UK; and (3) has an annual turnover of at least GBP 36 million. This captures a wide range of non-UK companies, including US, EU, and Asian multinationals with UK operations or UK sales. Foreign companies with UK turnover above the threshold are in scope even if they have no physical UK establishment.

Effectiveness Assessment of the UK MSA

The UK Modern Slavery Act was groundbreaking at the time of enactment, but multiple independent reviews have identified significant weaknesses in its design and enforcement. The most frequently cited problems include:

  • No meaningful penalties: The only consequence for non-compliance is a civil injunction requiring the company to publish a statement. In practice, injunctions have almost never been used, and companies face no financial penalty for failing to report at all.
  • Quality variation: Studies by the Business and Human Rights Resource Centre and others consistently find that a significant proportion of published statements are boilerplate, fail to cover all required areas, and contain no measurable outcomes.
  • No requirements for improvement: A company may publish the same minimal statement year after year without sanction.
  • Verification gap: Statements are not independently verified; the government registry does not review their substance.

A 2019 government-commissioned independent review by Frank Field, Maria Miller, and Baroness Butler-Sloss recommended significant amendments, including mandatory statement content, financial penalties for non-compliance, and a requirement for companies to report on the effectiveness of their actions. As of early 2026, comprehensive reforms have not yet been enacted, though government consultations have taken place.

Australian Modern Slavery Act 2018

Australia's Modern Slavery Act 2018, which entered into force on 1 January 2019, was directly modelled on the UK approach but with several improvements. Entities with an annual consolidated revenue of AUD 100 million or more (approximately USD 65 million) that are based or operating in Australia must submit annual modern slavery statements to the Australian Government's Modern Slavery Register.

The Australian Act specifies seven mandatory reporting criteria that all statements must address:

  • The entity's structure, operations, and supply chains.
  • The risks of modern slavery practices in the entity's operations and supply chains, and in any supply chains of entities it owns or controls.
  • The actions taken to assess and address those risks, including due diligence and remediation processes.
  • How the entity assesses the effectiveness of such actions.
  • The process of consultation with any entities the reporting entity owns or controls.
  • Any other relevant information (used for voluntary disclosures of metrics and case studies).

The Department of Home Affairs reviews statements for completeness against the seven criteria and can request re-submission if a statement is inadequate. However, the Act still does not impose substantive due diligence obligations or financial penalties, making it structurally similar to the UK model. A 2023 statutory review recommended introducing financial penalties, mandatory supplier engagement requirements, and provisions for victim remediation.

Norway Transparency Act (Apenhetsloven) 2022

Norway's Transparency Act (Apenhetsloven), which entered into force on 1 July 2022, represents a meaningful step beyond its UK and Australian predecessors. While it retains a transparency and reporting framework, it adds substantive due diligence requirements more closely aligned with the OECD Guidelines and the UNGPs.

The Act applies to larger enterprises domiciled in Norway and large foreign enterprises that offer goods and services in Norway. "Larger" is defined as enterprises that exceed two of the three thresholds: (1) balance sheet total of NOK 70 million; (2) annual revenues of NOK 140 million; (3) average of 50 full-time employees. This results in approximately 9,000 Norwegian enterprises and a significant number of foreign companies being in scope.

Companies must carry out due diligence in accordance with the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises, covering:

  • Embedding responsible business conduct in company policies.
  • Mapping and assessing actual and potential adverse impacts on human rights and decent working conditions in supply chains and business relationships.
  • Implementing measures to cease, prevent, or reduce adverse impacts.
  • Tracking implementation and results.
  • Communicating how impacts are addressed.
  • Providing for or cooperating in remediation.

Uniquely, the Norwegian Act gives individuals and organisations a right of information: any person may submit a written request to an enterprise asking for information about how it addresses human rights and decent work impacts, and the enterprise must respond within three weeks. This creates an accountability mechanism that does not depend on government enforcement or costly litigation.

Analogy: Transparency Laws as a Consumer Nutrition Label

Transparency laws work like nutrition labels on food packaging. The label does not prevent a manufacturer from making unhealthy products, but it discloses what is in the product so that consumers, regulators, and researchers can make informed judgments. The theory is that market pressure will incentivise healthier products over time. Critics of transparency-only approaches point out that nutrition labels have not eliminated unhealthy food; similarly, transparency laws have not, on their own, eliminated modern slavery. The lesson for human rights regulation is that transparency is necessary but not sufficient - it needs to be combined with substantive obligations and meaningful penalties.

Compliance Best Practices

For companies required to comply with one or more transparency laws, a minimum viable compliance approach involves:

  • Annual statement drafting with specific board-level sign-off and timely publication.
  • Coverage of all required criteria in the relevant jurisdiction (especially all seven Australian criteria).
  • Year-on-year progression narrative demonstrating improvement over the previous reporting period.
  • Integration with broader HRDD systems so that the transparency statement reflects real due diligence work rather than being a standalone document.
  • Use of concrete metrics (number of suppliers assessed, percentage with Code of Conduct, grievance cases received and resolved) rather than purely qualitative statements.

Example: A Retailer's Norwegian Transparency Act Response

A Norwegian fashion retailer received a formal information request from a civil society organisation asking specifically about working hours and wage levels among its Tier 2 fabric mills in Bangladesh and Vietnam. Under the Apenhetsloven, the company was required to respond within three weeks. Its response detailed the results of its most recent social audit programme across these mills, the percentage meeting its living wage benchmarks, and the corrective action plans in place for those that did not. The exercise surfaced data gaps the company had not previously recognised, leading to an expanded audit scope in the following reporting cycle.

Key Takeaways

  • 1The UK Modern Slavery Act (2015) requires companies with GBP 36 million or more UK turnover to publish annual modern slavery statements, but imposes no substantive due diligence obligations or meaningful financial penalties, which has limited its effectiveness
  • 2Australia's Modern Slavery Act (2018) improves on the UK model with seven mandatory reporting criteria and a government registry, but still lacks financial penalties - a gap identified in its 2023 statutory review
  • 3Norway's Transparency Act (2022) goes furthest by combining transparency requirements with substantive OECD-aligned due diligence obligations and a unique public right of information allowing any person to request details of a company's human rights due diligence
  • 4Common weaknesses across transparency laws include absence of financial penalties, no independent verification of statements, and no requirement to demonstrate year-on-year improvement
  • 5Best practice compliance involves treating transparency statements as accountability documents grounded in real due diligence work, with concrete metrics and a clear narrative of improvement over time

Knowledge Check

1.Under Section 54 of the UK Modern Slavery Act 2015, what is the consequence for a large company that publishes a modern slavery statement stating it has taken no steps to address modern slavery risks?

2.Which feature of Norway's Transparency Act (Apenhetsloven) most clearly distinguishes it from the UK and Australian modern slavery acts?

3.Australia's Modern Slavery Act 2018 requires reporting against seven mandatory criteria. Which of the following is one of those criteria?

4 of 4