Policy Impact Analysis - 117/S/4095

Bill Overview

Title: Transaction and Sourcing Knowledge Act

Description: This bill requires the Securities and Exchange Commission to mandate the reporting of certain information by publicly traded companies. Specifically, companies must report on the sourcing and due diligence involving products imported into the United States utilizing forced labor from Xinjiang, China; transactions with companies on the Department of Commerce's trade restriction list or designated as Chinese military-industrial complex companies; and for U.S. companies with facilities in China, whether there is a Chinese Communist Party committee in the operations of the company, and a summary of that committee's activity.

Sponsors: Sen. Scott, Rick [R-FL]

Target Audience

Population: Publicly traded company stakeholders

Estimated Size: 50000000

Reasoning

Simulated Interviews

Chief Compliance Officer of a Tech Company (New York, NY)

Age: 45 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 2.0 years

Commonness: 4/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This policy will definitely increase our operational costs as we need to establish a more comprehensive auditing system for our suppliers.
  • I expect initial complications in adjusting our supply chains, potentially delaying production timelines.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 5 6
Year 2 6 6
Year 3 6 6
Year 5 7 7
Year 10 8 8
Year 20 6 6

Investor (Los Angeles, CA)

Age: 32 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 3/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I'm hopeful that this policy will encourage more companies to be transparent about their operations abroad.
  • It could lead to better investment opportunities in firms with ethical practices.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 8 7
Year 2 8 7
Year 3 9 7
Year 5 9 8
Year 10 8 7
Year 20 6 6

Supply Chain Manager for a clothing retailer (Chicago, IL)

Age: 38 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 3.0 years

Commonness: 5/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • We have taken steps to address any sourcing issues from risky areas, but the policy will require us to dig even deeper.
  • This will likely increase costs around our auditing processes that could impact product pricing.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 4 5
Year 2 5 5
Year 3 6 5
Year 5 6 6
Year 10 7 6
Year 20 6 5

Factory Worker (Houston, TX)

Age: 50 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 4

Duration of Impact: 1.0 years

Commonness: 7/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I'm worried that my company might face cost input challenges that could lead to job cuts.
  • We rely on a stable business environment to maintain operations.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 4 4
Year 2 5 4
Year 3 5 5
Year 5 4 5
Year 10 5 5
Year 20 5 5

College Student (Seattle, WA)

Age: 25 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 1.0 years

Commonness: 4/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • The TASK Act seems like it would create more stable and ethical bases for international business operations.
  • It could narrow potential career opportunities if companies cut back international trade departments.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 6
Year 2 6 7
Year 3 7 7
Year 5 7 8
Year 10 7 7
Year 20 6 7

Retail Store Manager (Dallas, TX)

Age: 42 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 2.0 years

Commonness: 6/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I know customers care about ethical sourcing, so this policy will benefit our store's reputation.
  • If products become scarce due to changes in sourcing, sales might decrease temporarily.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 6
Year 2 7 6
Year 3 7 6
Year 5 8 7
Year 10 7 7
Year 20 6 6

Retired Financial Advisor (Miami, FL)

Age: 60 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 1.0 years

Commonness: 5/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This law may facilitate improved governance and transparency, driving sustainable investment options.
  • I doubt it affects my immediate financial outlook, but it certainly aligns with long-term views on ethical investing.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 7
Year 2 7 7
Year 3 8 7
Year 5 8 7
Year 10 8 8
Year 20 7 7

Software Engineer (San Francisco, CA)

Age: 28 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 8

Duration of Impact: 2.0 years

Commonness: 3/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Implementation of this policy could mean more work for me as our clients demand solutions for their compliance needs.
  • On the positive side, it might result in job security and interesting projects.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 8 8
Year 2 8 8
Year 3 8 8
Year 5 8 8
Year 10 9 9
Year 20 8 8

Nonprofit Director (Atlanta, GA)

Age: 55 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 9

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 2/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This is a significant step towards global accountability and transparency.
  • I see it as validating our advocacy efforts, setting a precedent for future policies.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 9 9
Year 2 9 9
Year 3 9 9
Year 5 9 9
Year 10 10 9
Year 20 8 8

Retired Factory Worker (Boston, MA)

Age: 67 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 0.0 years

Commonness: 8/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I'm usually skeptical about how effective these policies are in practice, but it's a welcome change to see action being taken.
  • I'm not sure how much this will affect my life directly.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 5 5
Year 2 5 5
Year 3 5 5
Year 5 5 5
Year 10 6 5
Year 20 5 5

Cost Estimates

Year 1: $300000000 (Low: $200000000, High: $400000000)

Year 2: $280000000 (Low: $180000000, High: $380000000)

Year 3: $260000000 (Low: $160000000, High: $360000000)

Year 5: $240000000 (Low: $150000000, High: $350000000)

Year 10: $220000000 (Low: $140000000, High: $340000000)

Year 100: $200000000 (Low: $130000000, High: $320000000)

Key Considerations