Claims assessment · Target claim
100% of suppliers compliant with our Human Rights Due Diligence by 2027
Typical treatment across five regimes. Every verdict below is tied to a stated legal hook.
Market comparison
How this claim is typically treated
Five major markets · one reviewed comparison
| Market | Typical treatment | Legal basis | What is required |
|---|---|---|---|
| European UnionEU | Conditional | Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD)Empowering Consumers Directive (EmpCo)Forced Labour Regulation View legal reasoningUCPD; CSDDD/FLR context | HRDD methodology published (assess-address-progress); compliance definition; supplier coverage %; alignment with JDE-style re-basing to HREDD where applicable. |
| United KingdomUK | Conditional | View legal reasoningCMA Code; MSA consistency | Methodology + consistency with s.54 statement. |
| United StatesUS | Conditional | View legal reasoningFTC Act s.5; UFLPA screening | Assessment records. |
| CanadaCA | Conditional | Competition Act greenwashing provisions (Bill C-59)Fighting Against Forced Labour and Child Labour in Supply Chains Act View legal reasoningCompetition Act s.74.01(1)(b.1); Supply Chains Act | Consistent with filed s.11(3) report. |
| AustraliaAU | Conditional | View legal reasoningACL s.18; MSA s.16 | Consistent with Modern Slavery Statement. |