A Monash University-led assessment found that FY2024 modern-slavery statements from 39 large ASX100 companies in the Financials and Materials sectors offered limited public evidence about how grievance mechanisms operate and whether remedies work. The companies addressed an average of 14.28 of 40 questions in the report’s 8R Framework. The authors caution that thin disclosure does not necessarily mean a company lacks effective practices; the assessment concerns what appeared in public statements.
What the report examined
The report, Grievance Mechanisms and Remediation, assessed FY2024 modern-slavery statements from 39 of the largest companies in the ASX100 Financials and Materials sectors. Monash University announced the findings on 6 October 2026. They should not be read as an assessment of every Australian company or every industry.
Grievance mechanisms are channels through which workers, communities and other stakeholders can raise actual or suspected harm, unsafe or unfair working conditions, exploitation, or other rights violations. Remediation is action to redress harm and help prevent it from happening again.
What the 8R Framework measures
The report uses a 40-question 8R Framework to assess how transparently companies disclose the design and operation of grievance mechanisms and the effectiveness of remediation processes. Monash’s announcement does not publish the complete framework, its full methodology or company-by-company scores, so it does not support conclusions about any named company’s performance.
#1 Best Overall
Across the 39 statements, companies addressed an average of 14.28 of the 40 questions—about 36 per cent, according to Monash. Five companies addressed at least half of the questions, while nine addressed fewer than 10.
What companies disclosed about channels, remedies and outcomes
The reported gaps are most pronounced in evidence about participation and what follows a complaint. Monash reported that:
Rank #2
- This groundbreaking historical expose unearths the lost stories of enslaved persons and their descendants who journeyed into freedom after the Emancipation Proclamation and then back into the shadow of involuntary servitude shortly thereafter in “The Age of Neoslavery.”
- 10 per cent disclosed evidence that affected stakeholders or their representatives were consulted in designing grievance mechanisms.
- 5 per cent disclosed a full range of potential remedies.
- 5 per cent reported consulting complainants about whether a remedy was adequate.
- 5 per cent disclosed remediation outcomes or the proportion of cases resolved to complainants’ satisfaction.
- No company disclosed the average or median time to complete remediation.
These percentages describe the FY2024 statements in the study’s 39-company sample, as reported by Monash—not all companies or all grievance channels. They point to a distinction between describing a policy or complaint channel and showing how a concern was handled, whether the response addressed the harm, and how long resolution took.
Why a hotline is not the same as an effective remedy
A channel is only useful if people affected by harm can access it and raise concerns safely, and if the organisation responds. Associate Professor Nga Pham, the report’s lead author at the Monash Centre for Financial Studies, Monash Business School, said: “A grievance mechanism should be more than a hotline or a policy on paper. It must be safe and trusted by workers, warn companies early of harm and provide a pathway to remedy,” Monash University’s announcement.
Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
Pham also said: “Our findings suggest that companies are much more comfortable reporting on their policies, committees and complaint channels than explaining what happens after a concern is raised.” The findings therefore concern the completeness of public reporting on operational response, not proof that a channel did or did not function in practice.
What the findings do—and do not—show
The assessment measures disclosure in modern-slavery statements. Monash explicitly cautions that disclosure quality does not necessarily represent underlying company practices or information available through other channels. A company may have processes that its statement does not describe; conversely, describing a process alone does not establish that it is safe, trusted or effective.
For readers evaluating a statement, the report’s findings make several questions useful: Does it explain who can raise concerns and how? Does it address safety and accessibility? Does it describe how affected people help shape the mechanism or assess a remedy? Does it report outcomes and resolution times? These are questions about the evidence made public, not a substitute for company-level findings absent from Monash’s announcement.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.What companies and policymakers are being urged to improve
The authors call for clearer communication and disclosure of grievance and remediation processes, stronger participation by affected stakeholders, more transparent reporting on outcomes, and safeguards for complainants’ privacy and safety. The practical emphasis is on explaining both the route for raising a concern and the response after one is raised.
Best Value
Pham described the 8R Framework as a possible aid to government and regulators developing clearer guidance: “The 8R Framework could support government and regulators in developing clearer guidance about the systems, processes and evidence relevant to reasonable steps,” Monash University’s announcement. Esty Marcu, Director of Responsible Business and Human Rights at The University of Sydney, said: “This Framework has been incredibly valuable because it not only provides a clear set of principles to guide good practice, but also enables organisations to self-assess their maturity and identify opportunities for improvement,” Monash University’s announcement.
The announcement situates the findings amid federal consultation on strengthening Australia’s modern-slavery laws. It refers to a proposed criminal offence for companies that fail to prevent modern slavery in their operations and supply chains, under which demonstrating reasonable steps could become critical. This is a proposal described in the consultation context, not a statement that the offence is enacted law.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
