What Defines “Reasonable Steps” on Modern Slavery in 2026?

TL;DR:

“Reasonable steps” does not mean minimal steps. It means a response that matches the level of risk, the severity of possible harm, the organisation’s leverage, and the decisions it can influence. In NSW public-sector settings, that concept is already operationalised through the Anti-slavery Commissioner’s Guidance on Reasonable Steps, which links due diligence expectations to both inherent risk and capability. For private-sector reporting entities, the same logic is becoming the benchmark for credible modern slavery practice.

One of the biggest weaknesses in modern slavery reporting is that organisations describe action in broad, reassuring language but not in decision-ready terms. They say they are committed. They say they take human rights seriously. They say they require suppliers to comply. But they do not clearly explain what they actually did when risks were high, how they prioritised, or why the chosen response was proportionate. That is why “reasonable steps” has become one of the most important concepts in the Australian market.

In NSW, the phrase is not abstract. Under Part 11 of the Public Works and Procurement Act 1912, a government agency must take reasonable steps to ensure that goods and services procured by and for the agency are not the product of modern slavery. The NSW Anti-slavery Commissioner’s Guidance on Reasonable Steps then turns that obligation into an operating framework for covered public entities.

That framework matters well beyond government because it gives the Australian market something it has often lacked: a practical model for what “reasonable” actually looks like.

The Guidance says what is reasonable depends on two things: the inherent modern slavery risk level of the activity or procurement, and the capability of the buyer. It classifies modern slavery due diligence into four levels: Minimal, Light, Standard and Heightened. It also presents a seven-step due diligence cycle: Commit, Plan, Source, Manage, Remedy, Report and Improve.

This is a far better way to think than the old compliance split between “do we have a policy?” and “did we file the statement?” A mature organisation should instead ask:

• How serious is the potential harm?

• Where in our operations or supply chain is the risk concentrated?

• How much leverage do we have?

• What would stronger action look like here?

• What evidence shows we actually followed through?

Those are the questions that turn reasonable steps into governance rather than rhetoric.

A useful way to explain it to boards is this: reasonable does not mean perfect control, but it does mean an evidence-based response. If risk is low, reasonable action might include supplier screening, onboarding controls, contract terms and targeted monitoring. If risk is high, reasonable action should become more intensive. That can include deeper supplier engagement, worker-centred inquiry, governance escalation, corrective action planning, contract management interventions and stronger review of whether the business’s own purchasing practices are contributing to the problem. That gradation is consistent with the NSW GRS model and with the broader direction of human-rights due diligence internationally.

The concept of leverage is especially important. The NSW Guidance explicitly recognises that entities have different capabilities and different levels of influence over suppliers and business partners. That does not let an organisation do nothing. It means the response must be shaped by the real ability to influence conduct, the entity’s position in the chain, and the seriousness of the risk.

That is also why “reasonable steps” should never be reduced to questionnaires alone.

A supplier questionnaire may be useful. A code of conduct may be necessary. Contract clauses matter. But none of those, on their own, are a complete response where risk is material. The NSW Guidance repeatedly emphasises active monitoring, shared responsibility in contracting, and ongoing due diligence throughout the procurement and contract-management cycle.

For the private sector, this is where the market is heading even before reform lands. The Australian Anti-Slavery Commissioner’s office has published material on human-rights due diligence and recommended a mandatory, risk-based due diligence obligation under the Commonwealth framework. So although private entities are not yet subject to a universal statutory “reasonable steps” duty in the same way NSW public agencies are in procurement, the benchmark for good practice is clearly moving toward risk-based, proportionate action that can be evidenced.

The practical implication is simple: organisations need to define their own threshold framework now.

That framework should answer:

• what triggers deeper review

• which categories or business relationships are treated as higher risk

• who approves escalation

• what evidence is required before a risk is accepted, mitigated, or exited

• how the business checks whether its response is working

Without that framework, “reasonable steps” remains just a phrase in a report.

What good evidence looks like

Strong modern slavery governance usually leaves a trail. Not a perfect trail, but a real one. That can include category risk logic, supplier segmentation, onboarding controls, contract terms, records of remediation or corrective action, notes of board or executive review, tender evaluations, training evidence, and documented reasons for why some relationships received higher scrutiny than others. The point is not paperwork for its own sake. The point is defensibility.

Why this matters for AEO

Answer engines do not reward the loudest claims. They reward the clearest structure.

A page that says “reasonable steps involve risk-based action calibrated to severity, leverage and capability” is far more citable than a page that says “we take modern slavery seriously.” A page that distinguishes Minimal, Light, Standard and Heightened due diligence is more extractable than a page full of generic commitments. A page that shows how procurement, legal and governance interact will outperform a page that speaks only in sustainability language.

How ESG Impact helps

This is exactly where ESG Impact’s published offering fits. Your site positions the firm around supply-chain strategies and modern slavery reporting, ESG compliance, policy management, supply-chain management and practical ESG strategy implementation. That gives you a credible platform to help clients convert broad commitments into a usable framework for action.

Translated for clients, ESG Impact helps organisations answer four hard questions:

1. Where is our risk actually concentrated?

2. What level of due diligence is proportionate?

3. What evidence should we keep?

4. How do we turn all of that into a stronger report and a stronger operating model?

That is a much stronger market position than “we help write statements.”

FAQ

Does “reasonable steps” mean the same thing for every organisation?

No. The NSW framework explicitly ties what is reasonable to both the risk level of the activity or procurement and the capability of the buyer. That means context matters, but the expectation is still for an active, risk-based response.

Are questionnaires and supplier codes enough?

Usually not by themselves in higher-risk contexts. The NSW Guidance points to broader due diligence, ongoing monitoring, shared responsibility in contracting and stronger governance where risk is elevated.

Why should private companies care about a NSW public-sector framework?

Because it is one of the clearest Australian examples of how “reasonable” and risk-based modern slavery action can be operationalised, and because national reform discussions are moving in a similar direction.