Dr Sofia Gonzalez De Aguinaga of the British Institute of International and Comparative Law (BIICL), with funding and support from the Modern Slavery and Human Rights Policy and Evidence Centre at the University of Oxford, published her report Impacts of Mandatory Human Rights and Environmental Due Diligence and Forced Labour Trade Ban Laws on Rightsholders (October 2026), drawing on an evidence review, stakeholder interviews and first-hand accounts from workers affected by labour exploitation.
Human Level’s Take:
- The legal landscape has shifted dramatically, but evidence of impact has yet to catch up. In less than a decade, mandatory human rights and environmental due diligence (mHREDD) laws and forced labour trade bans (FLTB) have emerged across major markets, reshaping the legal framework for addressing harms to workers in global supply chains. Companies face new obligations and enforcement measures, but what these laws mean in practice for rightsholders is still coming into focus.
- Different legal tools are reaching different workers. mHREDD laws place obligations on companies across a broad range of human rights issues, while FLTB laws use trade restrictions to address forced labour. So far, FLTB-related remedies have mainly reached migrant workers, particularly through recruitment fee repayments, while mHREDD-related remedies have more often benefited non-migrant workers.
- Remedy is emerging, but prevention remains the bigger challenge. Compensation, back wages and recruitment fee repayments matter. Yet they largely address harm after it has occurred, rather than the conditions that allowed it to happen. There is also little evidence of benefits reaching informal economy workers, Indigenous Peoples or ethnic minorities.
- For companies, the direction of travel is from processes to outcomes. Reporting still tells us more about what companies do than what changes for workers. The priority is to involve rightsholders in designing grievance mechanisms, assess whether remedies work for them and tackle the conditions behind exploitation, including inadequate wages and barriers to collective bargaining. The focus needs to extend beyond demonstrating due diligence to understanding whether it makes a difference.
Some key takeaways:
- The practical outcomes for rights holders under due diligence and forced labour laws: As more countries introduce mandatory human rights and environmental due diligence (mHREDD) and forced labour trade ban (FLTB) laws, a new study examines what has changed in practice for the people they are meant to protect. It compares five widely implemented laws: the French Duty of Vigilance Law, the German Supply Chain Act, Norway’s Transparency Act, section 307 of the US Tariff Act and the US Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act. The research draws on an evidence review, interviews with 32 people with lived experience of forced labour and labour exploitation, 21 trade union, civil society, business and investor representatives, and focus groups with 34 workers on two Malaysian palm oil plantations affected by a forced labour enforcement action. Both types of law have contributed to remedy for migrant and non-migrant workers, including compensation, repayment of recruitment fees and improvements in working conditions. However, these outcomes have mostly addressed past harm, case by case, rather than preventing exploitation or tackling its root causes. There is little to no evidence of benefits reaching informal economy workers, Indigenous Peoples or ethnic minorities, partly reflecting gaps in the laws’ scope and evidentiary requirements. Rightsholders have largely been excluded from how the laws are designed, enforced and evaluated, and workers interviewed knew little about them. Trade unions and civil society organisations (CSOs) have been central to securing results, but face resource constraints and depend on effective enforcement. The research cautions that the overall evidence base remains limited.
- Remedy is emerging under both types of law, but prevention remains limited: Under mHREDD laws, remedy has included compensation, back wages, improved conditions and collective bargaining agreements, but rarely through the formal mechanisms the laws establish. Of 30 formal notices and 13 lawsuits filed under the French law between 2017 and 2024, most were dismissed or remain ongoing. The 2026 Yves Rocher ruling is the only case to have resulted in compensation for workers, while 72 dismissed workers remain uncompensated. Most complaints under the German law in 2023 fell outside its scope, and all but three of Norway’s 17 first-year complaints were dismissed. Results have therefore largely depended on trade unions and civil society organisations (CSOs) using the laws as leverage. Under FLTB laws, remedy has centred on repayment of recruitment fees to migrant workers. US Customs and Border Protection reports more than $85 million in withheld wages and fees repaid over six years, with effects extending beyond targeted firms. Malaysian glove manufacturers had repaid more than $100 million by September 2021, including firms not directly targeted, while three Taiwanese bicycle makers had repaid an estimated $10 million by early 2026, only one of them directly targeted. The laws also reach different groups: FLTB laws have mainly benefited migrants, while mHREDD laws have mainly benefited non-migrants. mHREDD remedy extends beyond forced labour, whereas FLTB remedy is tied to forced labour indicators, leaving wider issues such as wages and health and safety largely unaddressed. Evidence of unintended consequences, including workplace surveillance, reduced recruitment of some migrant workers and risks when raising grievances, remains inconclusive. And although both regimes apply in the EU, they have yet to be enforced together, leaving their combined impact unclear.
- The next step is evidence of outcomes and stronger support for rightsholders: Corporate reporting under these laws still focuses on policies and procedures rather than what has changed for workers. None of the laws explicitly requires reporting on outcomes, and a review of 254 company reports under the German law (2023–24) found that only a minority described the results of specific remedies, with little indication of whether workers considered them adequate. Business representatives interviewed highlighted the distance between head offices and workers deep in supply chains, while all identified living wages as an outcome they were working towards. The research recommends that companies co-design safe, effective grievance mechanisms with rightsholders and pair remedy for past harm with measures to prevent its recurrence. This includes addressing underlying risks with suppliers, supporting collective bargaining, adequate wages and freedom of association, and drawing on worker-centred approaches such as Electronics Watch’s remediation model. Companies should also report publicly on remedy outcomes from rightsholders’ perspectives, engage trade unions and CSOs before problems escalate, and collaborate with peers on systemic risks. For funders and donors, the priority is strengthening the trade unions, CSOs and lived-experience leaders on whom results have depended, particularly as funding shortages have been compounded by US aid cuts. The study also calls for longer-term, rightsholder-centred research into groups largely missing from the evidence, including informal workers and Indigenous Peoples.
