Reconciliation Action Plans have become a standard feature of corporate Australia. More than 3,000 organisations across the country have one, from ASX-listed companies to local councils to community organisations. Reconciliation Australia oversees the framework, which progresses through four levels: Reflect, Innovate, Stretch, and Elevate.

The question that needs honest attention is whether all this activity is actually advancing reconciliation, or whether it’s become, for many organisations, a compliance exercise that generates reports without generating change.

What the framework does well

Let me start with what works. The RAP framework has done something remarkable: it’s normalised the conversation about reconciliation in Australian workplaces. For thousands of organisations, developing a RAP was the first time they seriously engaged with Indigenous history, culture, and the ongoing impact of colonisation.

The framework’s graduated structure makes sense. A Reflect RAP asks organisations to learn and build relationships before committing to action. This prevents the performative trap of making big promises without any foundation of understanding.

The procurement commitments embedded in higher-level RAPs have directed significant spending toward Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander businesses. Supply Nation’s verified business database and the procurement targets in Stretch and Elevate RAPs have created real economic opportunities.

And cultural awareness training, while sometimes superficial, has introduced millions of Australian workers to concepts they might never otherwise have encountered.

Where it falls short

The challenges are significant.

The gap between planning and action. Many organisations invest heavily in developing their RAP — workshops, consultations, beautifully designed documents — but invest far less in implementing it. A RAP that sits on the website and gets referenced once a year during NAIDOC Week isn’t advancing reconciliation.

Reconciliation Australia reports on implementation rates, and the numbers suggest significant variance. Some organisations substantially complete their commitments. Others complete only a fraction before their RAP period expires.

Shallow engagement. Some organisations treat reconciliation as an HR initiative rather than a whole-of-organisation commitment. The RAP Working Group meets, the Cultural Awareness training box gets ticked, and the Welcome to Country happens at the annual conference. Meanwhile, the organisation’s core business practices, investment decisions, and community relationships remain unchanged.

Genuine reconciliation requires examining power structures, addressing systemic barriers, and being willing to make uncomfortable changes. A Welcome to Country is important, but it’s not a substitute for structural change.

Accountability gaps. Reconciliation Australia provides guidance and reviews RAPs, but it has limited capacity to enforce implementation or hold organisations accountable for their commitments. The reputational incentive to have a RAP is strong; the accountability for actually delivering on it is weaker.

The tokenism risk. Some organisations use their RAP as a shield against criticism — “we have a RAP, therefore we’re doing the right thing” — without examining whether their day-to-day practices are consistent with reconciliation. Having a plan is not the same as making progress.

What good looks like

The organisations doing reconciliation well — and there are many — share certain characteristics.

Senior leadership commitment. The CEO and board are personally engaged, not just nominally. They allocate budget, hold people accountable, and publicly champion the organisation’s reconciliation commitments.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander voice. Indigenous people are involved not just in developing the RAP but in ongoing governance and decision-making. This means Indigenous representation on the board, Indigenous employees in senior roles, and genuine partnerships with Indigenous organisations.

Measurable progress. The organisation tracks its commitments with the same rigour it applies to financial targets. Procurement spend with Indigenous businesses is measured and reported. Employment targets are tracked. Cultural protocols are embedded in business processes.

Willingness to be uncomfortable. The best organisations acknowledge that reconciliation involves confronting difficult truths about Australian history and about their own practices. They don’t shy away from these conversations.

The bigger question

RAPs are a tool, not an end in themselves. The end is a reconciled Australia where Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples enjoy the same opportunities, rights, and recognition as other Australians. Where Indigenous cultures are respected and protected. Where the impacts of colonisation are acknowledged and addressed.

By that measure, we have a very long way to go. The contribution of corporate RAPs to that journey is real but limited. They can change workplace cultures, direct economic resources, and build understanding. They can’t, by themselves, address the systemic disadvantage that reconciliation ultimately requires us to confront.

What organisations should do

If your organisation has a RAP, ask yourself honestly: is it driving change, or is it gathering dust? Are you meeting your commitments, or just reporting on your intentions? Are Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people genuinely influencing your organisation, or are they being consulted but not heard?

If you don’t like the answers, do something about it. Reconciliation isn’t a document. It’s a commitment, and commitments require action.