Skip to main content
    QHSEtech
    Updated 22 September 2026
    Software Guide · Reviewed 22 September 2026

    Modern slavery software: beyond the annual statement

    The UK Act requires a statement describing the steps you took, or a statement that you took none. That is a disclosure duty, and it is why so much software in this space is built around producing a document. The document is the easy part. What makes a statement defensible — and what makes the process useful to anyone at risk — is the record underneath it: why these suppliers were prioritised, what the workers themselves could tell you, what was done when something was found, and whether last year's commitments can be traced to what actually happened.

    Jump to the 6 products

    Editorial responsibility: Dimitris Mitsios (Founder of The QHSE Standard; product marketing at Tekmon) · Tekmon pays for sponsored placements on this site (disclosure) · How pages are made · LinkedIn · Content date: 22 September 2026

    On this page (5 sections)

    What the law asks for, and what it does not

    Section 54 of the UK Modern Slavery Act requires commercial organisations above the turnover threshold to publish an annual slavery and human trafficking statement setting out the steps taken to ensure slavery and human trafficking are not taking place in their business or supply chains — or a statement that they have taken no such steps. The statute prescribes a disclosure, not a standard of performance, which is exactly why a well-written statement proves little on its own. UK Modern Slavery Act 2015, section 54: transparency in supply chains; UK Government: transparency in supply chains, a practical guide

    Australia's Act takes a different approach with mandatory reporting criteria and a central register, so an organisation reporting in both jurisdictions is answering differently shaped questions from the same underlying evidence. Establish which regimes you report under before configuring anything, and configure to the evidence rather than to either statement format. Australian Modern Slavery Act 2018

    The structure that survives across regimes is the due diligence cycle set out in the OECD guidance: identify risks, prioritise them, act, track whether the action worked, communicate, and remediate. Software configured around that will produce either statement; software configured around one statement template will need rebuilding when the next regime arrives. OECD Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Business Conduct

    Three records that make a statement mean something

    Prioritisation reasoning

    Why these suppliers, sites or commodities were examined and others were not — stored as reasoning, not only as a risk score. This is the first thing a serious reviewer asks for and the thing scoring tools most often cannot produce.

    Worker-level signals

    Recruitment fees, document retention, wage deductions, freedom of movement. These come from workers and hotlines rather than from supplier self-assessment questionnaires; ask what channel the platform actually supports for them.

    Remediation that is traceable

    What was found, what was agreed, whether it changed anything, and what happened when it did not. Remediation should centre the affected worker, and a record that can only close successfully cannot describe a real case.

    Test it on a finding you cannot fix

    1

    Prioritise a supplier and record why

    Have the platform place a real supplier in a risk tier, then find where the reasoning is stored. If the rationale exists only as a number, you cannot explain the decision to a reviewer or defend it in a statement.

    2

    Register a signal that did not come from the supplier

    Enter a worker-reported concern about recruitment fees. Establish whether the platform can hold information that contradicts a supplier's own questionnaire response, and how the two are presented together.

    3

    Agree a remediation measure and let it fail

    Record a measure, then record that it did not work. Confirm escalation, and that disengagement can be recorded as an outcome. A system that only closes successfully will misrepresent your programme.

    4

    Trace a statement sentence to its evidence

    Take one claim from a draft statement and follow it back to the underlying finding, measure and date. Then confirm the trace is exportable, because this is what an investor or journalist will ask you to substantiate.

    5

    Reopen last year's commitments

    Pull the commitments from a prior statement and establish whether the platform can show what happened to each. Year-on-year continuity is the weakest point in most programmes and the easiest thing to be caught on.

    Modern slavery software to evaluate

    This is not a ranking. A product is listed when its researched profile carries a modern slavery or supplier due diligence tag and a capability naming modern slavery or forced labour. Entries marked vendor-stated were told to us by the vendor and are not yet confirmed in public documentation. Worker signals often arrive through a whistleblowing channel; broader supplier workflows are covered in supply chain due diligence.

    Tekmon pays for a sponsored placement (above); its place in this list follows the same rule as every entry. How lists are ordered

    Same rule for every product: tagged “Modern Slavery”, “Supplier Due Diligence”, “Supplier Sustainability”, “Supplier Evaluation”, “Supplier Management” or “Supplier Data”, with a sourced modern slavery or forced labour capability in its record, or one the vendor stated to us, labelled as vendor-stated. 6 qualify.

    Software categories to explore

    Use this Process to define the work, then explore these software types. Confirm the exact workflow and module with each vendor.

    See all software categories

    Related guides

    Frequently Asked Questions

    What does the UK Modern Slavery Act actually require?
    Section 54 requires commercial organisations above the turnover threshold to publish an annual statement setting out the steps taken to ensure slavery and human trafficking are not taking place in their business or supply chains — or to state that they have taken no such steps. It is a transparency duty rather than a performance standard, which is why the quality of a statement says little by itself about the programme behind it.
    Is a supplier questionnaire enough?
    No, and relying on one is the most common weakness. Self-assessment asks the party with the least incentive to disclose. The signals that matter — recruitment fees, retained documents, wage deductions, restrictions on movement — generally reach you through workers, hotlines or unannounced assessment, so ask what channel the platform supports for information that contradicts a supplier's own answers.
    What makes a statement defensible?
    That every claim in it can be traced to a record: why a supplier was prioritised, what was found, what was agreed, and what happened next. Test this directly by taking one sentence from a draft and following it back. If the trace exists only in someone's memory or in a separate spreadsheet, the statement is a narrative rather than a disclosure.
    Can one system cover UK and Australian reporting?
    It should, if it is configured around the evidence rather than around a statement format. The two regimes ask differently shaped questions — Australia has mandatory reporting criteria and a central register — but draw on the same underlying due diligence record. A platform built around one country's template will need rework; one built around identify, prioritise, act, track, communicate and remediate will not.
    Which products should we look at?
    The list on this page follows a published rule: products whose researched profile names modern slavery or forced labour capability. They include specialists such as Fair Supply, Informed 365 and iPRO, and broader platforms such as Exiger. Pair any of them with a whistleblowing channel for worker signals.