You mentioned, Mr. Patry, when you talked about the U.K. law and issues of due diligence with respect to the U.K. law, that in the U.K. and California reporting is required. Compare that with the situation in the Netherlands or France where those models mandate due diligence. In effect, a company could fulfill the letter of the U.K. law by stating, as you noted, that they are doing nothing to address modern slavery. That could be taken as a sign that the laws in the U.K. and California are weak, frankly.
However, would you not acknowledge that it in fact could be a sign of a strong law because it does shame a potential company? Take company A, for example, that is reporting on a regular basis and making it clear to customers that they are sourcing the materials on their shelves through an ethical process and compare that with company B that is selling the same sort of product but is not reporting at all. When the question is put to them if they are reporting, they have nothing at all to say. Does that not show to you that there is some substance to the U.K. approach?