DS SMITH LIMITED modern slavery statement summary (2023)
Organisation address
London,
United Kingdom,
W2 1DL
We asked the organisation a series of questions about its modern slavery statement. Its answers are published on this page as a statement summary.
This statement provides information for all 6 recommended areas
What is a modern slavery statement?
PDF version of the statement
If you need an accessible version of this PDF file, please contact DS SMITH LIMITED for further assistance.

About this statement summary
All answers relate to the financial year covered by the statement. The organisation is responsible for all the information it provided. Some of our questions are optional, so organisations may not have answered all of them. The statement summary does not replace the full modern slavery statement – below we provide a link to the full statement on the organisation’s website.
Contents
- Organisations covered by the statement
- Legal requirement to publish
- Statement period and sign-off details
- Recommended areas covered by the statement
- The organisation’s sectors and turnover
- Number of years producing statements
- Policies
- Training
- Monitoring working conditions
- Modern slavery risks
- Finding indicators of modern slavery
- Demonstrating progress
Organisations covered by the statement
DS SMITH LIMITED modern slavery statement for 2023 is a group statement covering 9 organisations. See the full list of organisations covered by this statement
Legal requirement to publish
DS SMITH LIMITED has confirmed it is required to publish a 2023 statement by law.
Statement period and sign-off details
The statement covers the following period:
1 May 2022 to 30 April 2023
The statement was signed off by:
Miles Roberts (Group Chief Executive)
It was approved by the board (or equivalent management body) on:
6 September 2023
Recommended areas covered by the statement
Government guidance encourages organisations to cover a range of areas in their modern slavery statements, setting out the steps they’re taking to address modern slavery risks in their operations and supply chains. Read about the recommended areas in the statutory guidance.
We asked the organisation to tell us which areas its statement covers.
Areas recommended by government guidance | Organisation’s response |
---|---|
The organisation’s structure, business and supply chains | Covered |
Policies | Covered |
Risk assessment | Covered |
Due diligence (steps to address risk) | Covered |
Training about modern slavery | Covered |
Goals and key performance indicators (KPIs) to measure the effectiveness of the organisation's actions and progress over time | Covered |
The organisation’s sectors and turnover
Sectors
The organisation operates in the following sectors:
- Forestry, timber products, paper and containers and packaging
- Waste management and recycling
Turnover
Its turnover in the financial accounting year of this statement was:
Over £500 million
What does 'turnover' refer to in group statements?
Number of years producing statements
How does this work for group statements?
Policies (optional)
Policy provisions we asked about | Organisation’s response |
---|---|
Freedom of workers to terminate employment | Included |
Freedom of movement | Included |
Freedom of association | Included |
Prohibits any threat of violence, harassment and intimidation | Included |
Prohibits the use of worker-paid recruitment fees | Not included |
Prohibits compulsory overtime | Not included |
Prohibits child labour | Included |
Prohibits discrimination | Included |
Prohibits confiscation of workers' original identification documents | Included |
Provides access to remedy, compensation and justice for victims of modern slavery | Not included |
Other |
Not included
|
Training (optional)
What counts as training?
We asked who the training was for | Organisation’s response |
---|---|
Your whole organisation | No |
Your front line staff | No |
Human resources | No |
Executive-level staff | No |
Procurement staff | No |
Your suppliers | No |
The wider community | No |
Other |
All new starters
|
Monitoring working conditions (optional)
Engaging with others
We asked who the organisation engaged with | Organisation’s response |
---|---|
Your suppliers | Yes |
Trade unions or worker representative groups | Yes |
Civil society organisations | No |
Professional auditors | Yes |
Workers within your organisation | Yes |
Workers within your supply chain | Yes |
Central or local government | No |
Law enforcement, such as police, GLAA and other local labour market inspectorates | No |
Businesses in your industry or sector | No |
Social audits
What are social audits?
Social audits we asked about | Organisation’s response |
---|---|
Audit conducted by your staff | Yes |
Third party audit arranged by your organisation | Yes |
Audit conducted by your supplier’s staff | No |
Third party audit arranged by your supplier | No |
Announced audit | Yes |
Unannounced audit | No |
Grievance mechanisms
We asked if workers could raise concerns this way | Organisation’s response |
---|---|
Using anonymous whistleblowing services, such as a helpline or mobile phone app | Yes |
Through trade unions or other worker representative groups | Yes |
Other ways of monitoring working conditions
Modern slavery risks (optional)
Priority risks for this organisation (1 of 3)
Questions we asked about this risk | Organisation’s response |
---|---|
Where it was most likely to occur |
Organisation’s response:
Within your supply chains.
|
Who was it most likely to affect |
Organisation’s response:
|
In which country | Organisation’s response: Brazil |
Actions or plans to address this risk | Organisation’s response: It was identified the Tier 4 supplier (a subcontractor of a sugar cane supplier of a bioethanol supplier who supplies one of our ink suppliers) had been improper regarding housing and pay of its employees. The Ministry of Labor in Brazil intervened to resolve. None of the bioethanol produced by this sub-contractor was used within the DS Smith supply chain, Our supplier suspended their supplier, and we reassessed our supplier on Ecovadis and monitored them closely thereafter. |
Priority risks for this organisation (2 of 3)
Questions we asked about this risk | Organisation’s response |
---|---|
Where it was most likely to occur |
Organisation’s response:
Within your supply chains.
|
Who was it most likely to affect |
Organisation’s response:
|
In which country | Organisation’s response: China |
Actions or plans to address this risk | Organisation’s response: Our Tier 1 surveillance camera suppliers was implicated in human rights violations against Uyghur Muslims in China. The European Union, the USA, and Australia have all banned this supplier’s technology from government buildings due to security concerns. Once this information was brought to our attention we ceased working with this supplier. |
Priority risks for this organisation (3 of 3)
Questions we asked about this risk | Organisation’s response |
---|---|
Where it was most likely to occur |
Organisation’s response:
Within your supply chains.
|
Who was it most likely to affect |
Organisation’s response:
|
In which country | Organisation’s response: United Arab Emirates |
Actions or plans to address this risk | Organisation’s response: Two Tier 1 suppliers were identified as high-risk by our TMS business, who instigated Sedex SMETA. The audits identified both suppliers still retained employees’ passports despite a change in law that made this practice unlawful. Both suppliers have returned passports to the affected employees and providing a safe location under the control of the employees for such documentation to be stored securely. |