Authored by Dr Sofia Gonzalez De Aguinaga at BIICL, a new report published by the PEC explores these questions. It provides recommendations for governments, businesses, trade unions, civil society organisations and donors on how to make these laws more effective. Specifically, how they can help deliver effective remedies for harm to those affected and remedies that prevent harm in the first place.
Background
Countries around the world are introducing relatively new laws that make companies accountable for human rights harms in their global supply chains. Mandatory due diligence laws require businesses to address human rights and environmental risks in their supply chains, while forced labour trade ban laws exert economic pressure on companies to avoid the use of forced labour. These laws have the potential to improve working and living conditions for people. But how well are they working in practice so far, and are they reaching the people most at risk?
This report combines existing evidence with new research, including interviews with people with lived experience of forced labour and labour exploitation, and workers affected by forced labour trade bans. It examines what difference these laws are making, what challenges remain, and how they could work better for people affected by business-related human rights abuses.
Key findings
- These laws are making a difference, but not for everyone. Mandatory human rights and environmental due diligence (mHREDD) and forced labour trade ban (FLTB) laws have contributed to remedies for some workers and other people affected by human rights abuses. However, their reach is uneven. There is little evidence that these laws are reaching people working in the informal economy, Indigenous Peoples or ethnic minorities. So far, these remedies have focused more on addressing harm that has already happened than preventing harm from happening in the first place.
- Trade unions and civil society organisations play a vital role. They use these laws to seek remedy and push for companies to prevent harm, including compensation and improved working conditions. But their ability to influence companies is constrained by unequal power between workers and employers, as well as limited resources, poor transparency, shrinking civic space and weaknesses in how laws are enforced.
- The people these laws should protect have had little involvement. People affected by forced labour and labour exploitation have largely been left out of the design, enforcement, monitoring or evaluation of these laws. Many people interviewed for this research had little knowledge of the laws explored. Where remedies have been provided, they have rarely been designed together with the people affected. There is a disconnection between what the laws say on paper, and how they actually work in practice, in particular how effective they are at preventing harm and supporting recovery when it happens.
- These laws can also have unintended consequences if not well designed and enforced. There is emerging evidence that mHREDD and FLTB laws can have unintended consequences for workers, but the evidence is not conclusive that the laws themselves are responsible. In some cases, risks may arise from how laws are implemented, for example, when grievance mechanisms lack safeguards or worker involvement. The evidence also shows that these risks can be identified and mitigated when workers, trade unions and civil society organisations are involved in assessing potential impacts and shaping how laws are implemented.
What this means
Having laws in place is not enough. How they are designed and enforced is key. For these measures to make a difference, those most affected by business operations need a meaningful role in shaping, implementing and evaluating them. The report identifies in more detail what is working and where gaps remain, and sets out recommendations for what governments, policymakers, businesses, trade unions and civil society organisations can do to make these laws more effective at preventing harm and supporting people affected by it.
