Modern Slavery and Procurement: What Australian Organisations Actually Need to Do

The Modern Slavery Act 2018 (Cth) has been in force since 1 January 2019. It requires every Australian entity with annual consolidated revenue of $100 million or more to publish an annual Modern Slavery Statement describing the modern slavery risks in their operations and supply chains, and the actions they have taken to address those risks.

Seven years in, the uncomfortable truth is that most organisations are not doing this well. Over 12,500 statements have been filed on the Modern Slavery Register, representing more than 20,600 entities. Research from Monash University's Modern Slavery Research Programme consistently finds that the majority of statements are generic, surface-level, and disconnected from the organisation's actual procurement and supply chain operations. Studies suggest that 12 to 17 percent of reports are non-compliant with the Act's mandatory reporting criteria.

That gap between obligation and practice is about to narrow significantly. The statutory review of the Act, completed by Professor John McMillan AO in 2023 and responded to by the Australian Government in December 2024, recommended 30 changes. The government agreed to 25 of them. The direction is clear: civil penalties for non-compliance are coming, the reporting threshold is likely to drop from $100 million to $50 million, and mandatory human rights due diligence requirements are on the table.

For procurement teams, this is no longer a reporting exercise that gets handled once a year by the legal or sustainability team. It is becoming an operational obligation that sits squarely within the procurement function.

What the Act Actually Requires

The reporting criteria under the Modern Slavery Act are mandatory, not optional. Every Modern Slavery Statement must address seven specific criteria: the reporting entity's structure, operations, and supply chains; the risks of modern slavery practices in those operations and supply chains; the actions taken to assess and address those risks, including due diligence and remediation processes; how the entity assesses the effectiveness of those actions; the process of consultation with owned or controlled entities; and any other relevant information.

The Act defines modern slavery broadly. It covers trafficking in persons, slavery and slavery-like practices (including forced labour, forced marriage, debt bondage, and deceptive recruiting), and the worst forms of child labour. These are not abstract risks. The Global Slavery Index estimates that 41,000 people are living in conditions of modern slavery in Australia. The sectors most commonly associated with modern slavery risk in Australian supply chains include construction, cleaning, security, agriculture, food processing, textiles, and electronics manufacturing.

Currently, the Act does not impose penalties for non-compliance or for filing a weak statement. That is changing. The government's response to the statutory review confirmed support for civil penalties for failing to submit a statement, providing false information, or failing to comply with remedial action requests. An Anti-Slavery Commissioner, Mr Chris Evans, has been appointed with oversight and advisory functions. The consultation process on penalty frameworks ran through mid-2025, and legislative amendments are expected to follow.

Why This Is a Procurement Problem

Modern slavery risk enters an organisation primarily through its supply chain. The goods and services an organisation procures, the suppliers it engages, and the subcontracting arrangements within those supply chains are where the risk sits.

This makes it fundamentally a procurement problem. Legal can draft the statement. Sustainability can set the policy. But procurement is the function that selects suppliers, negotiates contracts, manages supplier relationships, and has the commercial leverage to require transparency and compliance from the supply base.

In practice, most Australian organisations have not embedded modern slavery risk management into their procurement processes in any meaningful way. The typical approach is to add a modern slavery clause to the standard contract template, include a question about modern slavery in the supplier onboarding form, and write a Modern Slavery Statement that describes these steps as if they constitute a programme. They do not.

Genuine modern slavery risk management in procurement requires three things: the ability to identify which parts of your supply chain carry the highest risk, a structured process for assessing and managing that risk in supplier selection and ongoing management, and contractual and governance mechanisms that give you visibility and leverage.

Where Most Organisations Fall Short

Risk assessment is generic, not specific. Most Modern Slavery Statements describe modern slavery risk in general terms: "We recognise that modern slavery can occur in global supply chains." What they do not do is identify, with any specificity, which categories of spend, which geographies, and which supplier tiers carry the highest risk in their actual supply chain. A construction company that procures steel, glass, and fittings from Southeast Asian manufacturers faces different risks from a healthcare provider that procures cleaning and security services domestically. The risk assessment should reflect that specificity.

Procurement processes do not screen for risk. In most organisations, the supplier onboarding process includes a modern slavery declaration: a tick-box exercise where the supplier confirms compliance. This is not risk screening. It is an administrative formality that tells you nothing about the supplier's actual practices, their subcontracting arrangements, or the conditions under which their products are manufactured. Effective risk screening involves assessing the category of goods or services, the country of origin, the labour intensity of production, and the supplier's own modern slavery maturity.

Contracts lack meaningful obligations. A standard modern slavery clause that requires the supplier to "comply with all applicable laws relating to modern slavery" is a legal placeholder, not a compliance mechanism. Meaningful contractual provisions include obligations for the supplier to conduct their own due diligence on their supply chain, to provide transparency on subcontracting arrangements, to allow audit rights, to maintain and make available grievance mechanisms for workers, and to report any known or suspected modern slavery incidents.

Monitoring is absent. Filing the Modern Slavery Statement is treated as the end point, not the beginning. Most organisations do not monitor their suppliers' modern slavery practices on an ongoing basis. They do not audit high-risk suppliers. They do not track whether contractual obligations are being met. They do not assess whether their actions are actually reducing risk. The Act specifically requires organisations to describe how they assess the effectiveness of their actions. Most statements either skip this criterion or address it with vague language.

The procurement team is not involved. In many organisations, the Modern Slavery Statement is prepared by the legal, company secretarial, or sustainability team with minimal input from procurement. The people who actually select and manage suppliers, who understand the supply chain's structure and risk profile, are not part of the process. This disconnection between the reporting obligation and the operational function that manages supplier risk is the single most common reason why statements are weak.

What Good Looks Like

Organisations that are leading in modern slavery compliance, and there are a small number in Australia doing this well, share several characteristics.

A risk-based approach to supply chain mapping. They have mapped their supply chain, at least to Tier 1 and selectively to Tier 2, against modern slavery risk indicators: geography, sector, labour intensity, subcontracting depth, and product type. They have identified their highest-risk categories and focused their due diligence effort there. This does not require mapping every supplier. It requires prioritising the categories and suppliers where the risk is highest and the organisation's leverage is greatest.

Procurement processes that embed modern slavery assessment. Their supplier onboarding, tender evaluation, and contract management processes include structured modern slavery risk assessment. For high-risk procurements, this includes a detailed supplier questionnaire that goes beyond self-declaration, evaluation criteria that weight modern slavery risk management alongside price and capability, and contract provisions that create real obligations.

Active supplier engagement. Rather than treating modern slavery as a compliance burden to push onto suppliers, leading organisations engage their suppliers on the topic. They communicate their expectations, provide guidance, and work collaboratively with suppliers to improve practices. This is particularly important for SME suppliers, who may lack the resources and expertise to develop sophisticated modern slavery programmes on their own.

Grievance mechanisms and incident response. They have established or participate in mechanisms through which workers in their supply chain can raise concerns. They have an incident response protocol for when modern slavery is identified or suspected. And they have a remediation framework that prioritises the welfare of affected people, not just the organisation's legal exposure.

Annual improvement. Their Modern Slavery Statement demonstrates year-on-year progress. Each statement builds on the previous one, reporting on what was done, what was found, what changed as a result, and what will be done next. The Anti-Slavery Commissioner has made it clear that static, repetitive statements will face increasing scrutiny.

The Government Procurement Dimension

For organisations that sell to government, modern slavery compliance is increasingly a competitive requirement.

The Commonwealth Government's procurement framework now includes modern slavery considerations as a standard element of tender evaluation for contracts involving goods manufactured overseas, labour-intensive services, or supply chains with exposure to high-risk geographies. The Department of Finance has published model modern slavery contract clauses and a procurement risk screening toolkit for use by Commonwealth procurement officers.

NSW has gone further. The Modern Slavery Act 2018 (NSW) applies a reporting obligation to NSW government agencies, local councils, and state-owned corporations. The NSW Anti-Slavery Commissioner oversees compliance and maintains a public register of non-compliant agencies. The NSW Procurement Board's policies require agencies to take reasonable steps to ensure that goods and services procured are not the product of modern slavery.

Queensland's Supplier Code of Conduct requires suppliers to make all reasonable efforts to ensure their supply chains are free from modern slavery. Victoria, the ACT, and other jurisdictions are at various stages of embedding similar requirements into their procurement frameworks.

For suppliers bidding on government work, the practical implication is that modern slavery compliance is no longer a background requirement. It is a scored evaluation criterion that directly affects whether you win work. Organisations that can demonstrate a mature, operational modern slavery programme, not just a statement on a register, will have a genuine competitive advantage in government procurement.

What the Reforms Mean for Procurement Teams

The legislative reforms signalled by the government's response to the statutory review will change the compliance landscape in several ways that directly affect procurement.

Penalties will create accountability. Civil penalties for non-compliance with reporting requirements, for providing false or misleading information, and for failing to comply with remedial action requests will elevate modern slavery from a voluntary transparency exercise to a compliance obligation with financial consequences. Procurement teams that have been treating modern slavery as a low-priority annual reporting task will need to take it seriously.

Due diligence may become mandatory. The statutory review recommended mandatory human rights due diligence requirements, aligning Australia with the direction of the EU Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive. If implemented, this would require organisations to identify, prevent, mitigate, and account for human rights impacts in their operations and supply chains. This is a fundamentally different obligation from the current reporting requirement. It shifts the focus from describing what you do to demonstrating that you are actively managing risk.

The threshold will drop. If the reporting threshold is lowered from $100 million to $50 million in consolidated revenue, approximately twice as many organisations will be required to report. Many of these organisations are mid-market businesses that currently have no modern slavery programme at all. They will need to build one from scratch.

Scrutiny will increase. The Anti-Slavery Commissioner has made it clear that the era of filing a boilerplate statement and moving on is ending. The Commissioner has powers to identify higher-risk sectors, locations, and suppliers, and to issue guidance that sets expectations for the quality and substance of reporting. Organisations that file weak statements will face reputational risk and, eventually, regulatory consequences.

A Practical Framework for Getting Started

For procurement teams that need to move from minimal compliance to genuine modern slavery risk management, here is a practical starting framework.

Step 1: Map your supply chain against risk. Start with your top 50 suppliers by spend. Assess each against the key risk indicators: country of origin of goods or services, labour intensity of the category, depth of subcontracting, and sector risk profile. The Australian Border Force's guidance and the Global Slavery Index provide country and sector risk ratings that can inform this assessment. The output is a heat map that tells you where to focus your effort.

Step 2: Strengthen your procurement processes. For high-risk categories, embed modern slavery assessment into your supplier selection and onboarding processes. This means moving beyond a self-declaration form to a structured questionnaire that asks specific questions about the supplier's labour practices, subcontracting arrangements, and their own modern slavery due diligence. For tender evaluations in high-risk categories, include modern slavery risk management as a weighted evaluation criterion.

Step 3: Upgrade your contracts. Review your standard contract templates and ensure they include meaningful modern slavery provisions: obligations for the supplier to conduct due diligence on their own supply chain, transparency on subcontracting, audit rights, grievance mechanism requirements, and incident reporting obligations. The Department of Finance's model clauses provide a useful starting point for government contracts, and the principles translate to commercial contracts.

Step 4: Build internal capability. Procurement staff need to understand what modern slavery is, what the risk indicators are, and what to do when they identify a concern. This does not require every buyer to become a human rights expert. It requires basic awareness training, clear escalation protocols, and access to specialist support when needed.

Step 5: Monitor and report. Establish a process for monitoring high-risk suppliers on an ongoing basis. This might include annual supplier self-assessments, periodic desktop audits, or participation in industry-wide audit programmes. Track your actions and their outcomes, because that is what your Modern Slavery Statement needs to report on. And involve procurement in the preparation of the statement, because procurement is where the knowledge sits.

How Trace Consultants Can Help

Trace Consultants works with Australian organisations to embed modern slavery risk management into their procurement and supply chain operations, moving beyond reporting compliance to genuine operational capability.

Supply chain risk mapping. We map your supply chain against modern slavery risk indicators, identifying the categories, suppliers, and geographies that carry the highest risk and require focused due diligence.

Procurement process design. We design supplier onboarding, tender evaluation, and contract management processes that embed modern slavery assessment as a standard element of procurement operations, not a standalone compliance exercise.

Contract review and clause development. We review existing contract templates and develop modern slavery provisions that create meaningful supplier obligations, audit rights, and incident reporting mechanisms.

Modern Slavery Statement support. We work with procurement, legal, and sustainability teams to prepare Modern Slavery Statements that meet the Act's mandatory reporting criteria, reflect the organisation's actual supply chain risk profile, and demonstrate genuine year-on-year improvement.

Explore our Procurement services →Explore our Supply Chain Sustainability services →Speak to an expert at Trace →

Where to Begin

If your organisation's modern slavery compliance currently consists of a contract clause and an annual statement prepared without procurement input, the reforms ahead will require a different approach. The good news is that the starting point is straightforward: map your highest-risk spend, assess your current procurement processes against the gaps described in this article, and build a plan to close them.

The organisations that start now will be prepared when penalties arrive. The ones that wait will be scrambling to build a compliance programme under pressure, which is always more expensive and less effective than doing it properly the first time.

Read more insights from Trace Consultants →Contact our team →

‍

Fuel Shortage, Spiking Costs, and Operational Risk: What Australian Industry Needs to Do Now

Part 2 of 3 — Key Industries at Risk

Diesel is up 67% since the start of March 2026. Wholesale unleaded petrol has risen nearly 50% in three weeks. United Petroleum — one of Australia's largest independent fuel wholesalers — has suspended customer allocations. And if the Strait of Hormuz remains disrupted for another two to three months, economists are warning petrol could climb a further dollar per litre from already elevated levels.

For the sectors that keep Australia fed, stocked, and moving, this is not a macroeconomic abstraction. It is a cost and operational crisis landing right now, in the middle of trading cycles, harvest seasons, and peak logistics periods. This article identifies the industries most acutely exposed to Australia's fuel supply chain disruption, the scenarios each should be planning for, and the supply chain actions that can make a meaningful difference.

The Structural Problem Underneath the Price Shock

Before getting into sector-specific impacts, it is worth being precise about what is happening in Australia's fuel supply chain — because the mechanisms matter for how each industry responds.

Australia refines only a small fraction of its liquid fuel domestically. The Ampol refinery in Brisbane and the Viva Energy refinery in Geelong together produce a fraction of national demand; the vast majority of Australia's refined product arrives by ship from Singapore. Singapore, in turn, sources crude from the Middle East — meaning that disruption to the Strait of Hormuz flows directly into Singapore's refining throughput, which flows directly into Australia's import program.

The price shock is therefore not just a trading or hedging issue. It is a physical supply chain vulnerability. When Iran threatens to target ships passing through Hormuz, when vessel traffic through the strait drops by 70%, and when war-risk insurance surcharges reach historic highs, the cost and availability of refined fuel in Australia is structurally impaired — regardless of what happens at the retail bowser.

For industry, that means the conventional response — waiting for the market to settle — is not adequate planning.

Logistics and Transport: The Sector That Carries Everyone Else

No sector is more immediately exposed to fuel cost and availability shocks than transport and logistics. Fuel represents 25–35% of operating costs for a typical Australian road freight operator. A 67% increase in wholesale diesel prices is not a margin squeeze — it is an existential threat to operators running thin contracts.

The immediate impact is visible in fuel surcharges. Most freight contracts include a fuel surcharge mechanism, but those mechanisms were calibrated against normal price bands. At current prices, surcharges are being triggered at levels that many shippers have never seen and are not contractually prepared for.

The scenarios for logistics operators run from painful to severe.

In a short-term disruption scenario, operators absorb elevated fuel costs, pass surcharges through to customers where contracts allow, and manage cashflow pressure for eight to twelve weeks. The business impact is real but survivable for well-capitalised operators.

In a three to six month sustained disruption, the calculus changes. Smaller operators without fuel hedging arrangements or strong customer contracts face insolvency pressure. Route rationalisation begins — less profitable regional and rural routes are deprioritised or suspended, creating service voids in exactly the areas that can least afford them. Fleet utilisation decisions get made on cost rather than customer service criteria.

In an extended disruption beyond six months, we start to see structural change: industry consolidation, service withdrawal from marginal routes, and potentially government intervention in freight capacity allocation.

For logistics operators right now, the priority actions are clear: review every fuel surcharge clause in every customer contract, understand your current hedged versus exposed fuel position, model cash flow under each scenario, and start a conversation with your major customers about cost-sharing arrangements before the surcharges hit and the relationship deteriorates.

FMCG and Manufacturing: When Input Costs Attack from Every Direction

For FMCG producers and manufacturers, fuel is an input cost that appears in multiple places simultaneously: inbound raw materials freight, outbound finished goods distribution, energy costs for production facilities, and the fuel component embedded in packaging, agricultural inputs, and other materials.

The current disruption is compressing margins from multiple directions at once. Inbound freight costs are rising. Energy costs are rising. Outbound distribution costs are rising. And retailers — themselves under cost pressure — are not automatically accommodating price increases.

The scenario planning for FMCG manufacturers needs to consider two distinct risk horizons.

In the near term, the focus is on cost management and supply continuity. Which raw materials are most exposed to inbound freight disruption? What is the lead time for securing alternative supply? What is the stock position for key ingredients and packaging materials, and what buffer is adequate given current supply chain volatility?

Over a three to six month horizon, the question becomes one of procurement strategy and cost recovery. Can price increases be passed through? Which SKUs have the margin resilience to absorb cost shocks, and which should be rationalised or temporarily discontinued? Are there supply chain design changes — closer sourcing, mode shift, co-manufacturing arrangements — that reduce fuel exposure structurally?

Procurement strategy in this environment is not just about buying fuel more cheaply. It is about redesigning procurement arrangements across the supply chain to reduce total fuel dependency and build flexibility for a more volatile cost environment.

Agriculture: The Sector Flying Blind

The agricultural sector's exposure to the current fuel crisis is acute, immediate, and under-acknowledged in the mainstream policy conversation.

Diesel is the agricultural sector's lifeblood. It powers tractors, harvesters, irrigation pumps, grain handling equipment, and the trucks that move product from paddock to processor. Retail diesel prices in many regional centres have already passed 225 cents per litre — up from around 175 cents before the conflict began. For large farming operations running extensive fleets and irrigation systems, that represents hundreds of thousands of dollars in additional annual cost.

The timing is appalling. The current disruption has landed during the autumn planting window in major cropping regions. Farmers who miss their planting window do not get a second chance — the production is simply lost for the year. And unlike metropolitan businesses that can defer discretionary activity, farming operations run to biological and climatic schedules that do not negotiate.

The supply chain visibility problem is particularly severe for agriculture. Tamworth-based Transwest Fuels — which supplies more than 2,000 farmers and agricultural customers — has already declared zero petrol supply at Newcastle and Brisbane terminals. Farmers in New South Wales and Queensland who relied on those supply chains are now scrambling.

The scenarios for agriculture are stark. A short-term disruption of four to eight weeks is manageable for operations that entered the crisis with reasonable on-farm storage and strong supplier relationships. A three to six month disruption that overlaps with harvest season is genuinely damaging to both individual operations and national food production volumes. An extended disruption creates systemic risk to Australia's agricultural supply chain that reverberates through the entire food system.

For agricultural businesses, the immediate actions are: secure fuel supply now rather than waiting, review on-farm storage capacity and fill it where possible, communicate with your agronomists, bankers, and processors about the supply situation, and model what a 30% and 60% reduction in fuel availability means for your seasonal programme.

Retail: Freight Costs Eat the Margin

Australian retail — both grocery and general merchandise — depends on a logistics network that is now significantly more expensive to operate. The cost of getting product from supplier to distribution centre to store has risen sharply, and will rise further if the disruption continues.

For grocery retailers, the pressure is compounded by product categories with high freight intensity. Fresh produce, chilled and frozen goods, and bulk staples all carry disproportionately high freight costs as a percentage of shelf price. When diesel goes up 67%, the freight component of a supermarket delivery does not simply become 67% more expensive in absolute terms — the percentage impact on category margin can be dramatically higher.

For general merchandise retailers, the conversation is partly about inbound international freight — ocean freight rates have already spiked as war-risk surcharges apply to Middle Eastern lanes — and partly about domestic distribution costs. Both are rising simultaneously.

The scenarios for retail depend heavily on how long the disruption lasts and whether freight cost increases can be recovered through pricing. In a short disruption scenario, most retailers absorb the cost impact or pass modest price increases through. In a sustained scenario, the conversation about supplier freight cost responsibility becomes unavoidable, and retailers with sophisticated procurement arrangements — consolidated freight programmes, domestic sourcing initiatives, and distribution network optimisation — will be structurally better positioned.

The warehousing and distribution and procurement decisions made right now by retail supply chain teams will determine how well the sector weathers the next six months.

Hospitality and Integrated Resorts: Operational Complexity Under Cost Pressure

For large hospitality operators — hotels, integrated resorts, and commercial food service businesses — the fuel crisis creates operational challenges that are less visible than price spikes but equally consequential.

Food and beverage supply chains for large hospitality operators depend on multiple daily deliveries, often from distributed supplier networks. When freight costs rise sharply, two things happen: supplier delivery charges increase, and suppliers begin consolidating delivery runs, extending lead times and reducing delivery frequency. For a hotel kitchen running tight par levels and just-in-time ordering, extended lead times and reduced delivery reliability are operational problems, not just cost problems.

The fuel crisis also affects back-of-house operations directly. Waste removal, linen logistics, engineering and maintenance fleet operations, and the movement of goods between properties all carry fuel costs that are now materially higher.

Hospitality operators need to review their back-of-house logistics arrangements with fuel cost volatility explicitly in mind. That means reviewing delivery frequency and consolidation opportunities, assessing par levels and safety stock for key categories, and understanding where supplier contracts allow for freight cost recovery.

The Common Thread: Supply Chain Visibility and Scenario Planning

Across every sector reviewed here, the single most important factor in navigating the current disruption is supply chain visibility. Organisations that know their fuel cost exposure, understand their stock positions, and have modelled their operations under multiple scenarios are making better decisions than those flying blind.

The current crisis has exposed a structural problem in Australian industry supply chains: too many organisations are managing fuel as a passive cost rather than an active risk. Fuel procurement is delegated to site managers or fleet teams without a consolidated view at the executive level. Contracts were written for a stable price environment. Scenario planning either does not exist or has not been updated since COVID.

The good news is that the actions required are not exotic. They are disciplined supply chain management applied urgently and at scale.

How Trace Consultants Can Help

Trace Consultants supports clients across FMCG, retail, logistics, hospitality, agriculture, and infrastructure on supply chain strategy, procurement, and risk management. In the current environment, we are helping clients with:

Fuel exposure assessment and scenario modelling. We build a consolidated view of your fuel cost exposure across the supply chain — inbound freight, outbound distribution, on-site operations — and develop scenario models for short, medium, and long-term disruption. This gives leadership a clear picture of financial exposure and operational risk under each scenario.

Procurement contract review and strategy. Our procurement team reviews fuel supply and freight contracts for allocation clauses, force majeure provisions, and cost recovery mechanisms. Where contracts need to be renegotiated or supplemented, we design the strategy and support execution.

Supply chain network and distribution optimisation. For clients whose distribution networks are no longer optimised for a high-fuel-cost environment, we provide strategy and network design services that identify consolidation opportunities, mode shift options, and sourcing changes that reduce fuel dependency structurally.

Planning and operations support. Our planning and operations team works with clients on demand planning, stock positioning, and operational scheduling to reduce fuel consumption and build resilience into day-to-day operations.

Back-of-house logistics for hospitality. For integrated resorts and commercial hospitality operators, we bring specialist back-of-house logistics capability to review delivery arrangements, par levels, and supplier consolidation opportunities in the context of elevated freight costs.

Explore our Supply Chain Resilience services →

Speak to an expert at Trace →

Where to Begin

For any industry operator reading this, the starting point is the same: consolidate your fuel exposure data, understand your contracted position, and model your operations under at least two disruption scenarios.

Do not wait for the situation to resolve. The organisations that are acting now — reviewing contracts, repositioning stock, consolidating freight programmes, and redesigning procurement arrangements — will be structurally better positioned when the disruption eventually eases. Those waiting for certainty will be managing a recovery problem rather than a resilience advantage.

The Cost of Inaction

Every week of inaction in a supply chain disruption of this scale carries a cost. It is not just the direct cost of higher fuel prices — it is the margin impact of freight surcharges not anticipated in customer contracts, the operational disruption of allocation constraints not planned for, and the reputational damage of supply failures that could have been avoided.

Australia's industries have managed supply chain disruptions before — COVID, flooding, the 2025 Iran conflict. The organisations that navigated those events best were the ones that treated them as supply chain management problems requiring structured response, not external shocks to be waited out.

The same applies now. The disruption is real, the trajectory is uncertain, and the supply chain actions required are clear.

Reshoring and nearshoring have become the supply chain buzzwords of the moment.

Every major disruption of the past five years — COVID supply chain seizures, China trade sanctions, the US-China technology decoupling, and the 2025 tariff escalation — has generated another wave of commentary about the need to bring manufacturing home, diversify away from China, and build more regionally resilient supply chains. The conversation is legitimate. But much of the rhetoric obscures what reshoring and nearshoring actually mean for Australian businesses operating in the real world — with real cost structures, real geography, and real constraints on what can be sourced domestically or regionally.

This article cuts through the buzzwords to explain what these strategies involve, when the business case genuinely stacks up for Australian organisations, and where the pitfalls lie for businesses that pursue them without rigorous analysis.

Defining the Terms

The terminology is used loosely. It helps to be precise.

Reshoring means bringing manufacturing or sourcing back to Australia — replacing offshore production with domestic production. It might mean a food manufacturer switching from imported ingredients to Australian-grown alternatives, or a defence contractor rebuilding domestic component manufacturing capability, or a retailer sourcing apparel from Australian manufacturers rather than Asian ones.

Nearshoring means relocating supply to geographically closer countries — typically Southeast Asia, the Pacific, New Zealand, or India — rather than the lower-cost but more distant manufacturing centres of China. For an Australian business that has been sourcing from Guangdong, nearshoring might mean transitioning to Vietnam, Indonesia, Malaysia, or India.

Friendshoring is a related term — sourcing from geopolitically aligned countries rather than geopolitically neutral or adversarial ones. For Australian businesses navigating US-China tensions, friendshoring means building supply chains through countries that are part of aligned trade and security arrangements: Japan, South Korea, India, the ASEAN nations, the US, UK, and New Zealand.

These three concepts are complementary rather than mutually exclusive, and most supply chain diversification strategies involve elements of all three.

Why the Conversation Has Gained Urgency

The reshoring and nearshoring conversation has been running since COVID exposed the fragility of just-in-time, single-source supply chains. What has changed in 2025 is that several factors have converged to make the urgency real rather than theoretical.

The cost gap with China has narrowed. Manufacturing labour costs in coastal China have risen substantially over the past decade. When you add freight costs (which spiked dramatically during COVID and have not returned to pre-COVID levels), quality control costs, intellectual property risk, minimum order quantities, and the increasingly complex compliance burden, the total landed cost advantage of Chinese manufacturing over regional alternatives is much smaller than it was in 2015.

Trade policy risk is now priced. The Australian business community has experienced Chinese trade sanctions directly. The US tariff environment has demonstrated that major trading relationships can be disrupted by policy decisions that are unpredictable and fast-moving. Boards and CFOs who were previously willing to accept single-geography sourcing concentration as an acceptable risk are now being asked harder questions about contingency.

Southeast Asian manufacturing has matured. Vietnam, Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, and increasingly India have developed genuine manufacturing capability across a wide range of categories — apparel, electronics, furniture, packaging, food processing, and light engineering. Lead times are longer than China for some categories, but quality is increasingly competitive and trade agreement coverage is good.

Government policy is creating incentives. The Australian government's Modern Manufacturing Initiative, the Critical Minerals Strategy, the AUKUS industrial base development programme, and various state-level manufacturing investment schemes are creating financial incentives for reshoring in priority sectors. For businesses in defence, critical minerals, medical products, and clean energy, domestic sourcing may be commercially attractive in ways it wasn't five years ago.

The Australian Reshoring Calculus

For businesses considering reshoring to Australia, the honest business case is complex and sector-dependent.

Where Reshoring Makes Sense

Critical sectors with security of supply requirements. Defence, medical supplies, and food security are categories where Australian government policy explicitly supports domestic manufacturing, and where security of supply considerations justify a cost premium that pure commercial logic wouldn't support. For businesses in these sectors, reshoring is partly a strategic positioning question — positioning for government contracts and long-term policy-driven procurement preferences.

High-value, low-volume, specialised manufacturing. Australian manufacturing is genuinely competitive in categories where skilled labour, intellectual property, quality, and service proximity matter more than unit labour cost. Advanced manufacturing, bespoke engineering, niche food and beverage products, and precision components are categories where reshoring can be commercially sound without government support.

Perishable and time-sensitive supply. Categories where freshness, lead time, or rapid response to demand changes are critical advantages — fresh food, seasonal apparel, bespoke promotional goods — have a natural domestic sourcing argument where the geographic proximity advantage outweighs the cost differential.

ESG-driven sourcing. As Australian consumers and institutional buyers increasingly scrutinise supply chain ethics and carbon footprint, domestic sourcing's ESG credentials — known labour standards, lower transport emissions, full traceability — provide a genuine commercial premium in categories where customers will pay for it.

Where Reshoring Doesn't Stack Up

For the majority of Australian businesses in the majority of categories, full reshoring to domestic manufacturing is not commercially viable at current cost structures. Australia's manufacturing labour cost base, combined with the small scale of the domestic market (limiting production scale economies), means that products requiring significant labour input and capable of achieving scale in offshore facilities will remain cheaper to source offshore.

The categories where reshoring is hardest to justify on pure economics: consumer electronics, apparel and textiles at mass-market price points, furniture and homewares, most plastics and packaging, and commodity chemicals. These categories are manufactured at scale in environments where Australian labour costs create a structural disadvantage that technology and productivity improvements can narrow but not close.

Being honest about this distinction matters. Chasing reshoring in categories where it doesn't stack up wastes capital, creates uncompetitive cost structures, and distracts management attention from the supply chain improvements that would generate genuine commercial returns.

The Nearshoring Opportunity for Australian Businesses

For most Australian businesses, the more commercially viable version of supply chain diversification is nearshoring — shifting sourcing toward Southeast Asia and the broader Indo-Pacific region — rather than full domestic reshoring.

The business case for nearshoring rests on four advantages:

Reduced geopolitical concentration risk. Transitioning a portion of sourcing from China to Vietnam, Indonesia, Malaysia, or India reduces dependence on a single geopolitical relationship. It doesn't eliminate China exposure — and for most categories, maintaining some China sourcing for cost reasons makes sense — but it reduces the vulnerability of the supply chain to a single trade policy shock.

Trade agreement coverage. Australia has preferential trade agreement coverage across the Indo-Pacific that makes Southeast Asian sourcing commercially attractive. AANZFTA provides duty-free or reduced-duty access for goods sourced from ASEAN members. The CPTPP includes Vietnam, Malaysia, Singapore, Brunei, and — from December 2024 — the UK. The Australia-India ECTA, operative from December 2022, is progressively reducing tariffs on Indian goods. These agreements materially reduce the total landed cost of regional sourcing relative to tariff-free but geographically and geopolitically exposed Chinese sourcing.

Lead time improvement. For time-sensitive categories, Southeast Asian sourcing typically offers shorter lead times to Australia than Chinese manufacturing — particularly for goods manufactured in southern Vietnam, peninsular Malaysia, or Batam in Indonesia.

Supplier development investment leverage. For Australian businesses large enough to make supplier development worthwhile, Southeast Asian manufacturers are often more receptive to co-investment in capability, quality systems, and product development than their Chinese counterparts — both because the relationships are earlier-stage and because the manufacturers are more dependent on Australian buyer relationships as a differentiator.

Practical Nearshoring Challenges

Nearshoring is not a simple swap. The practical challenges are real and need to be accounted for in the business case.

Supplier qualification time and cost. Qualifying a new supplier in Vietnam or Indonesia takes time — typically 6–18 months to move from identification to reliable production at required quality and volume. During that period, the existing supply chain must be maintained.

Scale constraints. Southeast Asian manufacturers often have smaller production capacities than their Chinese counterparts in many categories. For high-volume requirements, splitting production across multiple regional suppliers may be necessary — which adds supplier management complexity.

Infrastructure variability. Port capacity, logistics reliability, and supply chain infrastructure vary significantly across Southeast Asian markets. Vietnam's logistics infrastructure has improved markedly but is not uniform across the country. Indonesia's geographic fragmentation creates logistics complexity. Understanding the logistics environment for specific sourcing locations is part of the business case.

IP and quality risk. These risks exist in all offshore manufacturing environments. They are not uniquely high in Southeast Asia — and in some categories, Vietnam, Malaysia, and India have quality track records that are well-established. But they need to be managed, not assumed away.

Building the Business Case

The decision to reshore or nearshore should be made on a rigorous total cost of ownership analysis — not on sentiment, not on geopolitical anxiety, and not on tariff forecasts that may not persist.

Total cost of ownership for any sourcing decision includes: unit manufacturing cost, inbound freight, duty and tariff, quality control and inspection costs, inventory carrying cost (driven by lead time — longer supply chains require more safety stock), supplier management overhead, IP and quality risk premium, and carbon cost (increasingly relevant for ESG-conscious buyers).

When this analysis is done rigorously, the decision is often more nuanced than the reshoring narrative suggests. The right answer is typically: maintain a core Chinese supply relationship for categories where scale economies are decisive, diversify a portion of volume to a Southeast Asian supplier for risk management, and pursue domestic sourcing for categories where the ESG or security premium is commercially defensible.

Portfolio thinking — treating the supply base as a portfolio to be managed for risk, cost, and resilience simultaneously, rather than optimised for cost alone — is the right framework.

How Trace Consultants Can Help

Making reshoring and nearshoring decisions well requires both strategic clarity and rigorous commercial analysis. The organisations that get it right are the ones that build the business case first, execute the transition with discipline, and manage the new supply relationships actively.

Trace Consultants helps Australian businesses assess, design, and execute supply chain diversification strategies.

Supply chain risk assessment. We map your current sourcing concentration and geopolitical exposure, and quantify the risk and cost implications of your current supply footprint.

Total cost of ownership modelling. We build rigorous TCO models for reshoring and nearshoring scenarios — comparing domestic, regional, and offshore sourcing options on a fully loaded cost basis.

Supplier identification and qualification. We identify, shortlist, and support the qualification of regional suppliers in Southeast Asia, India, and domestic Australian markets.

Transition planning. We design and manage the transition from existing to new supply arrangements — managing the risk of the switchover while maintaining supply continuity.

Explore our Strategy & Network Design services →Explore our Procurement services →Speak to an expert at Trace →

‍

‍