Ms Sorcha Tunney:

I will respond to Deputy Stanton's query on good practice and good business. I will also respond to what Deputy Clarke said about indigenous women and gender in terms of mandatory due diligence.

Deputy Stanton asked for examples of good practice. We would probably point to companies like Adidas and Unilever that have taken on mandatory due diligence. These companies have lead the way. Our report highlights bad practice because we can see that there is a need for regulation. I wish to note that we are not talking about all companies. However, at the same time, many companies have called for mandatory due diligence legislation because many companies are experiencing an uneven playing field now. One has companies that engage in best practice, engage with human rights defenders, ensure that, along their whole supply chain, that they are not impacting on human rights and then there are those that do not. The companies that play fair lose out in the long run and there is no level playing field. Recently, 105 investors called for the introduction of mandatory due diligence globally and there is a very big and growing corporate voice to bring in companies, which is great. We have seen that because there is no level playing field, we need mandatory due diligence for some corporations to make sure they come in under the same kind of regulation. I hope that I have answered the question.

On gender and mandatory due diligence, I agree with Ms Mateus Parra that the best thing about the first step is engaging communities and listening to what they have to say, and putting the rights holders in the centre of legislation. Women are negatively impacted by the absence of such regulation and we can see that when we talk about slave labour and poor working conditions.

We can see companies actively increasing gender discrimination and gender pay gaps by the practices they allow along their supply chain. We would like companies, when engaging with any proposed work, to do proper gender analysis and if there is an absence of data to collect data to establish if the work practice they are engaging with will end up making matters worse for the lives of women and workers. The first step is to listen to and engage with women and with communities if one's business is in that area. That seems a natural first step to many of us. Businesses should also examine the way in which the companies with which they engage would impact on women and working conditions, whether it be women working at home and there being no protection of their labour rights. That is what the new law would provide for. That is what we would like to see. The last thing we want to do is to continue to push women back as we move forward.