In 2021, undocumented workers employed by the French postal service, La Poste, filed a lawsuit under the French Law of Vigilance to challenge the exploitation and unfair labor conditions to which they had been exposed while their employer looked the other way. Passed in 2017, the French Law of Vigilance was groundbreaking not only in imposing due diligence requirements on companies but also in creating a vehicle for liability when a company failed to meet those requirements and harm occurred as a result.
In December 2023, the Paris Judicial Court issued the first, long-awaited decision under the law, addressing the working conditions of undocumented workers and the responsibility of in-scope employers to remove opportunities for human rights abuses in their operations and publish due diligence reports. Evidence in the case showed that “undocumented workers were interchanging papers and badges to work night shifts at the Chronopost platform in Alfortville, Val-de-Marne,” a form of exploitation. Representing the workers, the SUD PPT union argued that La Poste failed to meet its obligations because it neither appropriately reported on the violations nor ensured that its due diligence efforts ended the harmful labor practices. The court partially agreed, finding that La Poste did not properly include this ongoing labor violation in its required due diligence reports. However, in a blow to human rights advocates, the court declined to exercise its penalty powers, neither requiring the company to update its practices to prevent future labor violations nor imposing penalties for ongoing violations because it found that SUD PPT had failed to show a clear link between the risk mapping conducted by La Poste and the harm that occurred. Thus, while the court found that harm had indeed occurred and that La Poste had not adhered to risk-mapping requirements in its due diligence reports, it concluded the harm was not sufficiently caused by violations of the French law. This case illustrates the uphill battle nation-states face in eradicating forced labor from supply chains, in part because legislation lacks enforcement mechanisms that meaningfully incentivize companies to implement solutions.
Nearly twenty-eight million people worldwide are trapped in forced labor, producing goods that generate an estimated $236 billion in illegal profits each year. Forced labor, labor exploitation, and unfair labor practices have persisted in business for decades, despite well-intentioned attempts by international organizations, domestic legislative bodies, and socially-responsible corporations to eradicate them. However, ongoing unfair labor practices and the rising number of individuals in forced labor demonstrate that these efforts have thus far been unsuccessful. Legislation and regulation, as well as public policy, have failed to incentivize companies to build ethical and resilient supply chains. This failure is due in part to legislation that lacks clear standards and enforcement mechanisms, and in part to companies’ inability—or unwillingness—to adopt practices that might reduce profits, even when such measures would promote global human rights.
This Article examines common legislative approaches to combatting forced labor—highlighting the shortcomings of trade, corporate, and due diligence laws. Specifically, it analyzes the recently implemented Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) in the context of existing supply chain, corporate, and international trade frameworks aimed at addressing human rights violations, particularly forced labor and indentured servitude. Ultimately, ensuring fair labor practices along the supply chain requires global agreement among governments and corporations, systematic enforcement, and strong consumer pressure. This Article concludes that, despite its well-intentioned goals, CSDDD lacks the teeth to meaningfully end forced labor, making it just one more example in a long line of legislation that fails to prevent human rights violations.
Part I of this Article provides background on the use of forced labor globally, focusing on labor violations in the supply chain. Part II discusses the emergence of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) principles and laws as a mechanism for eradicating human rights violations and forced labor, and Part III provides a brief history of international legal mechanisms that emerged with this same goal. Part IV evaluates legal tools by examining domestic laws—primarily trade and corporate laws—enacted to address and prevent human rights violations in supply chain operations. In Part V, the Article examines due diligence laws, starting with existing frameworks and then analyzing the CSDDD. Part VI then offers recommendations on which legal mechanisms may be most effective in removing forced labor from supply chains moving forward. The Article concludes that Western nations should prioritize trade laws targeting goods and regions at the highest risk of forced labor, as these laws have demonstrated early success. Rather than relying upon altruism-dependent due diligence laws, import regulations that create a rebuttable presumption against goods from high-risk sectors and regions can more effectively move companies to build business relationships that advance their corporate responsibility—achieving social impact in ways due diligence laws have not.