JTW-JME-07
Justice, Trade & Work
Justice & Market Ethics
CORE
Excellence
v2.9.7
Annual independent fair‑trade/ethical trade and AML assurance outcome
Assesses whether the organization undergoes an annual independent assurance review of its ethical trade (including modern slavery and supplier due diligence) and AML framework aligned to a risk‑based approach, with documented remediation and board oversight. Annual independent assurance is delivered either as (i) an ISAE 3000 (Revised) limited assurance report over the AML control framework and ethical trade due diligence controls, or (ii) an Agreed-Upon Procedures (AUP) report with pre-agreed tests and sampling, approved by the board/audit committee.
Assessment Questions
- Confirm whether the organisation is a ‘relevant person’ under MLR 2017; if not, what equivalent controls are in place and why are they proportionate?
- What is the agreed assurance standard (e.g., ISAE 3000, AUP) and scope, and what was excluded (with justification)?
- Does the organization have formal, documented, and board-approved policies for both fair trade and Anti-Money Laundering (AML)?
- What whistleblowing (AML) and supplier/worker grievance mechanisms exist, and what are the annual usage/escalation statistics?
- What was the outcome of the most recent external assurance, and can you provide evidence of how findings were systematically addressed?
- How are the audit results used to drive continuous improvement and enhance strategic decision-making?
Evidence Requirements
- Assurance Terms of Reference (scope, standard, sampling approach, period).
- Assurance provider competence statement + independence declaration + non-audit services disclosure.
- Most recent annual external assurance report (ISAE 3000 or AUP) covering both fair trade and AML.
- Findings log with severity rating, owner, due date, and closure evidence.
- Board/audit committee paper approving scope and receiving the final report.
- Documented AML/Financial Crime Risk Assessment and Ethical Trade Supply Chain Risk Assessment.
- Evidence of periodic sanctions screening test results (aggregated) and CDD QA file review statistics.
- Publicly available transparency reports (if applicable for Level 5).
Scoring Guidelines
| Level | Rating | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 5 | 5/5 | Independent assurance (ISAE 3000/AUP) with no critical/high findings, ≥95% remediation <90 days, ≥90% coverage. |
| 4 | 4/5 | Independent assurance with no critical findings, limited high findings promptly remediated, ≥80% coverage. |
| 3 | 3/5 | Assurance completed with moderate findings; partial scope (≥60% coverage) or slower remediation. |
| 2 | 2/5 | One or more critical/high findings; inadequate scope (<60%) or recurring issues. |
| 1 | 1/5 | No independent assurance or severe deficiencies not addressed. |
Discussion (1)
Administrator
2026-03-07 12:01:09.363840
📋 **Version updated: 1.0.0 → 2.9.7** **Changes:** Full import from mizan-297.json
Sign in to post a comment.