Explore the vast range of titles available.

Mandatory human rights due diligence is the latest global example of a legislative scheme for fostering corporate action on human rights risks within business supply chains. Such proposals stem from more than 30 years of increased pressure on companies to tackle labour rights abuses. If not clearly defined and implemented, human rights due diligence risks enhancing the legitimacy of techniques such as social auditing to serve as inadequate proxies for due diligence. Without mechanisms to incorporate the views of rights holders in its design and implementation and ensure access to remedies for rights holders, it is perhaps more accurately depicted (for now) as the next shiny thing that may be more a distraction than a substantive mechanism for pursuing real change and redress for labour exploitation in global supply chains.

Governments are increasingly introducing legislative measures imposing reporting requirements on corporations to address a range of human rights abuses including modern slavery. A new federal Modern Slavery Act (Federal Act) took effect in Australia on 1 January 2019, and a state-level modern slavery law was adopted in June 2018 in New South Wales (NSW). This follows similar laws enacted in the United Kingdom (UK) and California, with draft bills under consideration in other jurisdictions such as Canada, Hong Kong and the United States.

Human rights due diligence is today a key aspect of the international, regional and national debates about corporate accountability for human rights abuse. It is a process by which businesses are expected to assess actual and potential human rights impacts, integrate and act upon the findings, track the responses, and communicate how those impacts are addressed. Yet there is little research as to how effective human rights due diligence is and whether its aim to prevent business activities which have adverse impacts on human rights, has been achieved in state and business practices. HRDD is now at the crossroads as it begins to become part of legislation, which will firmly test its potential to contribute substantively to the prevention of corporate human rights abuses. Drawing on developments in law and empirical research, this article examines the effectiveness of human rights due diligence as a means to prevent business activities which have adverse impacts on human rights, in relation to the actions of states, business and rightsholders.

The growth of transnational corporations over the past few decades has been paralleled by concerns to find ways of regulating the deleterious impacts on human rights by the ever-increasing number of companies whose corporate tentacles stretch across national boundaries and beyond the reach of traditional corporate control mechanisms. The steady evolution of a global social expectation that companies should respect international human rights standards, combined with the occasional foray by states in adopting an expansive approach to protecting rights, is changing the nature and possibility of developing a firmer basis for corporate accountability for human rights. What we are witnessing is a process of re-regulation whereby state and non-state actors are utilizing a combination of public and private regulation to improve the framework for corporate rights compliance. The regulation of corporate activity with respect to human rights requires a multiplicity of stakeholders and a very nuanced mix of public and private regulation that may be difficult to replicate easily across different sectors, states and cultural boundaries. Keywords: corporate responsibility, human rights, regulation, Guiding Principles

Mandatory human rights due diligence is the latest global example of a legislative scheme for fostering corporate action on human rights risks within business supply chains. Such proposals stem from more than 30 years of increased pressure on companies to tackle labour rights abuses. If not clearly defined and implemented, human rights due diligence risks enhancing the legitimacy of techniques such as social auditing to serve as inadequate proxies for due diligence. Without mechanisms to incorporate the views of rights holders in its design and implementation and ensure access to remedies for rights holders, it is perhaps more accurately depicted (for now) as the next shiny thing that may be more a distraction than a substantive mechanism for pursuing real change and redress for labour exploitation in global supply chains.

Mandatory human rights due diligence is the latest global example of a legislative scheme for fostering corporate action on human rights risks within business supply chains. Such proposals stem from more than 30 years of increased pressure on companies to tackle labour rights abuses. If not clearly defined and implemented, human rights due diligence risks enhancing the legitimacy of techniques such as social auditing to serve as inadequate proxies for due diligence. Without mechanisms to incorporate the views of rights holders in its design and implementation and ensure access to remedies for rights holders, it is perhaps more accurately depicted (for now) as the next shiny thing that may be more a distraction than a substantive mechanism for pursuing real change and redress for labour exploitation in global supply chains.

Modern slavery in global supply chains is attracting increased attention from states, businesses and civil society including momentum to seek a “regulatory solution” to combatting it. In 2018, Australia introduced a Modern Slavery Act which was modelled on (in part) the UK Modern Slavery Act (2015). These laws emphasise corporate disclosure as the primary means of identifying and remedying modern slavery in supply chains. Whilst these disclosure-based laws harden the expectation that business will conduct itself responsibly, they are ultimately founded on a soft approach that assumes that the transparency gained from disclosure will incentivise corporate action to address human rights risks. Two independent reviews conducted in relation to the UK Act (in 2018) and the Australian law (in 2023) recommended significant changes to improve their regulatory effectiveness, including establishing a more ambitious enforcement model and a requirement to conduct human rights due diligence. This article considers the lessons learned since the establishment of the two modern slavery regimes, it explores the role of human rights due diligence in strengthening the current regulatory regimes and the efficacy of establishing a “failure to prevent” offence to enforce due diligence compliance. Finally, it discusses the utility of states adopting a forced labour import ban as a complementary regulatory strategy to contribute to a holistic regulatory framework to address modern slavery.

The aim of this paper is to examine the potential effectiveness and limitations of the emerging mandated social disclosure and human rights due diligence laws. Globalization has led to the emergence of low cost, efficient (but risky) supply chains that span multiple sourcing countries which exhibit a wide range of economic, political, social, labor and environmental standards. The five laws examined seek to provide mechanisms that aim to reduce the negative human rights impact of business in supply chains. They introduce varying demands on business to map, track and disclose how and where their products are being made. This paper first briefly highlights the preponderance of soft law that defines the business and human rights regulatory framework and guides corporate behavior. It then examines three mandated disclosure laws, the Dodd-Frank Act, the California Transparency in Supply Chains Act and the UK Modern Slavery Act and two due diligence focused laws, the Australian Illegal Logging Prohibition Act and the French Duty of Corporate Vigilance Law. After which, it proposes criteria to strengthen the development and implementation of these laws. It concludes by noting that while these laws are hardening the human rights expectations of business, for them to generate substantive (and not just procedural) human rights compliance they must incorporate: detailed requirements on reporting and due diligence: collaboration with external stakeholders and; compliance measures. Through analysis of these regulatory developments this paper seeks to provide greater understanding of how to shape regulatory responses to governance gaps in transnational supply chains.

Multi-stakeholder initiatives (MSIs) are increasingly used as a default mechanism to address human rights challenges in a variety of industries. MSI is a designation that covers a broad range of initiatives from bestpractice sharing learning platforms (e.g., the UN Global Compact) to certification bodies (e.g., the Forest Stewardship Council) and those targeted at addressing governance gaps (e.g., the Fair Labor Association). Critics contest the legitimacy of the private governance model offered by MSIs. The objective of this paper is (1) to theoretically develop a typology of MSIs, and (2) to empirically analyze the legitimacy of one specific type of MSI, namely industry-specific MSIs. We argue that industry-specific MSIs that set out to govern corporate behavior have great potential to develop legitimacy. We analyze two industry-specific MSIs—the Fair Labor Association and the Global Network Initiative—to get a better understanding of how these MSIs formed, how they define and enforce standards, and how they seek to ensure accountability. Based on these empirical illustrations, we discuss the value of this specific MSI model and draw implications for the democratic legitimacy of private governance mechanisms.

While blockchain was designed as a ledger for cryptocurrency transactions, it can record transactions of anything of value. Blockchain is increasingly used to prove the integrity of commodities, tracing their supply chain journey from the source to the end user. Yet, transferring this technology from a cryptocurrency context to a supply chain setting is not without difficulties. This article explores the implications for multinational and transnational companies in using blockchain as a means to address modern slavery. The research identifies five challenges: verification, inclusion, trust, privacy, and normativity.