Purpose

Between 2015 and 2022, many importing or consuming countries have proposed or passed legislation to improve the sustainability of businesses’ supply chains. by strengthening transparency and accountability for the social and environmental impacts of imported products. The legislations fall into three categories: disclosure-based legislation, mandating that companies report on sustainability-related risks and their approach to reducing it; due diligence legislation, which mandates companies to implement procedures to assess, mitigate, and remediate sustainability-related risks in their supply chains; and trade-based legislation, which prohibits the import of specific types of goods linked to adverse outcomes. N.B. They cover issues such as deforestation, forced labor, child labor, or other environmental and social harms associated with products. The database does not focus on other elements regulating trade such as tariff regimes, trade, and investment treaties.

Intent

This database was designed to provide insights into the major legislative proposals and laws that could change the way coffee businesses need to operate.

These include:

• When will they come into force?
• Who do they apply to?
• What types of environmental and social impacts need to be accounted for?
• What are the steps or practices to be in compliance?

Legislation Database

Scroll to See More

	Category	Policy name	Jurisdiction All Mexico USA Australia Netherlands Japan United Kingdom Canada South Korea Spain Brazil European Union India Switzerland Germany Norway China New Zealand France Belgium Indonesia Austria	Status Select Status In force Failed to pass Failed to pass House; may be reintroduced in 2023 Proposed Published Adopted Signed joint declaration Stalled Failed to pass; may be reintroduced	Year in force Select Year 2023 NA 2025 2019 NA; unclear 2015 2024 (first report to be filed on or before May 31, 2024) 2004 2014 FY 2022-23 2005 2022 2012 2021 2022; requirements are applicable as per fiscal year 2023 2017 2024; The first companies will have to apply the new rules for the first time in the 2024 financial year, for reports published in 2025.	Company & value chain scope	Type of Entity Affected (Companies; Gov; NGO)	Notes for Type of entity affected	Commodities/ sectors covered	Notes for Commodities/ sectors covered	Supplying region scope	Notes for Supplying region scope	Process	Year proposed	Year passed	Goal	Comment & Updates	Company & value chain scope	Company size	Value chain scope	Material scope	Environmental sustainability	Notes on Environmental sustainability	Social sustainability	Notes on Social sustainability	Implementation steps required	Supply chain traceability	Notes for Supply chain traceability (level and procedures)	Staff training	Notes for Staff training	Mapping of potential risks	Notes for Mapping of potential risks	Risk mitigation / prevention	Notes for Risk mitigation / prevention	Detection of issues / non-compliance in supply chain	Notes for Detection of issues / non-compliance in supply chain	Corporate grievance/ complaint mechanism	Notes for Corporate grievance/ complaint mechanism	Ending adverse impacts and remedial action	Notes for Ending adverse impacts and remedial action	Internal monitoring and evaluation	Notes for Internal monitoring and evaluation	Output and transparency	Notes for Output and transparency	3rd party assurance/ verification of reported information	Notes for party assurance/ verification of reported information	Enforcement	Public compliance monitoring and enforcement	Corporate liability and penalties for non-compliance	Notes for Corporate liability and penalties for non-compliance	Individual liability and penalties for non-compliance	Notes for Individual liability and penalties for non-compliance	Extraterritorial litigation, victims' access to courts, and civil liability for harm	Notes for Extraterritorial litigation, victims' access to courts, and civil liability for harm	Equity considerations	Smallholder or SME supplier compliance support	Notes for Smallholder or SME supplier compliance support	Associated cooperation mechanisms with producing countries	Notes for Associated cooperation mechanisms with producing countries	Simplified requirements or exemptions for specific types of companies (e.g. SMEs)	Notes for Simplified requirements or exemptions for specific types of companies (e.g. SMEs)	Implications for coffee	Major requirements that may constitute changes to status quo	Risk level	Notes for risk level	Sources	Official legal text	Other sources consulted	Field 67	Field 68	Field 69	Field 70	Field 71	Field 72
	Disclosure + Diligence + Remediation legislation
		Forced Labour Regulation	Mexico	In force	2023		Companies - Importers	All businesses importing goods into Mexico	All		All			NA	2023	The Forced Labor Regulation, which will become effective on May 18, 2023, implements the obligation included in the USMCA (United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement) to prohibit the importation of goods produced in whole or in part by forced or compulsory labor, including forced or compulsory child labor. The ban will allow the government to detain and block imports into the country suspected to be produced with forced labor. If goods are determined to be produced with forced labor, the government will post the findings or "resolutions" on their website. Companies will need to have documentation and proof that imports into the country are not tied to any form of forced labor to avoid detainments or import bans.			All sizes	Entire supply chain		No		Forced labor			Yes	Yes, implicitly. Importers will need to maintain in their files information and documents that duly demonstrate that the goods they import are not covered by the lists on the MLSW website	No		No		Yes	Yes implicitly, to prevent illegal imports.	Yes	Yes implicitly, to prevent illegal imports	No		No		No							The Ministry of Labor and Social Welfare (“MLSW”) and the Secretaría de Economía (Ministry of Economy) is responsible for monitoring and enforcing compliance. Interested third parties can also submit evidence that signals that a particular good was produced with forced labor, which will trigger investigations. The Forced Labor Regulation provides that the Ministry of Labor and Social Welfare (“MLSW”) may initiate, ex officio or at the request of a private party, a procedure where it will determine if forced labor was used in the production of goods. To the extent MLSW, following its procedure, determines that certain goods were made with forced labor, such findings (called “resolutions”) will be published on MSLW’s website, pursuant to the Forced Labor Regulation, and goods covered by such resolutions will be prohibited from entering into Mexico.	No	Not specified in the Regulation. It is expected that non-compliant goods will not be allowed to be imported.						Not mentioned		Not mentioned		Not mentioned			Risk assessment, risk mitigation, verification	Medium	Only focused on forced labor, not child labor alone which is prevalent in more origins. So far, lack of clarity on implementation and penalties		https://dof.gob.mx/nota_to_doc.php?codnota=5679954	https://www.elevatelimited.com/insights/publications/supply-chain-due-diligence-legislation-map/	https://supplychaincompliance.bakermckenzie.com/2023/02/22/mexicos-implementation-of-usmca-forced-labor-import-ban/	https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/press-office/press-releases/2023/february/statement-ambassador-katherine-tai-mexicos-action-imports-produced-forced-labor
		US Fostering Overseas Rule of Law and Environmentally Sound Trade (FOREST) Act	USA	Failed to pass	NA		Companies - Importers	Importers of covered commodities (initially: Palm oil, soybeans, cocoa, cattle, rubber, wood pulp) into United States (coffee is NOT currently included on the list of commodities) (coffee is NOT currently included on the list of commodities)	Palm oil; soybeans; cattle; rubber; pulp; cocoa; products made wholly or in part of palm oil, soybeans, cocoa, rubber, pulp.	These lists will be updated at least annually to ensure their scope is sufficient to deter illegal deforestation and ensure covered commodities produced on illegally deforested land do not enter the United States	Somewhat risk-based	Applies to all supplying regions, however the USTR would be responsible for developing action plans for countries “without adequate and effective protection against illegal deforestation caused by the production of commodities likely to enter the United States.” The import of “covered commodities” or derivative products produced in a country designated by an “action plan” is prohibited unless an importer files a declaration upon entry with “sufficient information” about the supply chain, and the steps taken to assess and mitigate risks of potential illegal deforestation in the supply chain		2021	NA	To combat illegal deforestation by prohibiting the importation of products made wholly or in part of certain commodities produced on land undergoing illegal deforestation, and for other purposes.	Applicability is somewhat risk-based: Applies to all supplying regions, however the USTR would be responsible for developing action plans for countries “without adequate and effective protection against illegal deforestation caused by the production of commodities likely to enter the United States.” The import of “covered commodities” or derivative products produced in a country designated by an “action plan” is prohibited unless an importer files a declaration upon entry with “sufficient information” about the supply chain, and the steps taken to assess and mitigate risks of potential illegal deforestation in the supply chain. This bill was introduced on October 8, 2021, in a previous session of Congress, but it did not receive a vote and therefore died in Congress. While some of its sponsors have voiced interest in re-introducing it, it is as of yet unclear whether this will occur in the near future.		All sizes	Entire supply chain		Illegal deforestation		No			Only disclosure	Only disclosure on importation of any of the “covered commodities” or derivative products produced in a country designated by an “action plan” is prohibited unless an importer files a declaration upon entry with “sufficient information” about the supply chain, and the steps taken to assess and mitigate risks of potential illegal deforestation in the supply chain; for commodities not produced from land subject to deforestation, at the minimum should include data detailing the complete list of direct and indirect suppliers and supply chain traceability information, including refineries, processing plants, farms, and plantations, and their respective owners, parent entities, and farmers, maps, and geolocations, for each forest-risk commodity found in products that may be furnished to the Federal Government.	No		Yes	Exercise “reasonable care to assess and mitigate the risks” that imported products did not originate from illegally deforested lands.	Yes	Exercise “reasonable care to assess and mitigate the risks” that imported products did not originate from illegally deforested lands. Policies at the minimum should include: Measures taken to ensure that each such commodity does not contribute to deforestation; Measures taken to ensure the process of obtaining the free, prior, and informed consent of indigenous peoples and local communities directly affected by the production of such commodities; Measures taken to protect biodiversity and prevent the poaching of wildlife and trade in bushmeat in all operations and areas adjacent to the production of such commodities.	Yes	To prevent illegal imports. Policy at minimum should include measures to identify the point-of-origin of forest-risk commodities and ensure compliance with the policy when supply chain risks are present.	No		Yes	Not later than three years after enactment, the U.S. Trade Representative will develop an action plan for each country identified with the goal of implementing: processes to remedy or adjudicate previous illegal deforestation activities	No		true	Declaration upon entry with “sufficient information” about the supply chain, and the steps taken to assess and mitigate risks of potential illegal deforestation in the supply chain				U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) would enforce the prohibition	Yes	Existing Tariff Act civil and criminal penalties apply	true	Criminal liability for the use of illegally derived funds to “knowingly to carry out, enable, or encourage illegal deforestation.” Also includes illegal deforestation as an unlawful activity under Title 18 – Crimes and Criminal Procedures.				Not mentioned		Yes	The USTR would be responsible for developing action plans for countries “without adequate and effective protection against illegal deforestation caused by the production of commodities likely to enter the United States.” An action plan would be designed to assist the country to achieve certain goals, such as new laws to end illegal deforestation, enhancing enforcement capacity, monitoring and data sharing, transparency and accessibility to land-use, and traceability and data-sharing for commodity supply chains. Furthermore, an action plan would also include certain benchmarks, such as “legislative, institutional, enforcement, or other actions” the USTR deems “necessary to demonstrate that the foreign country has achieved the goals” previously mentioned. There are funds allocated to support such an action plan financially	Not mentioned				Low	Though may change if definition of scope commodities changes		https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/5508/text	https://www.natlawreview.com/article/lawmakers-propose-new-import-ban-targeting-commodities-produced-illegally-deforested	https://www.schatz.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/FOREST%20Act%20Section%20by%20Section%20final.pdf	https://www.schatz.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/forest_act.pdf	https://www.steptoeglobaltradeblog.com/2021/11/potential-implications-of-the-forest-act-of-2021-and-related-developments-in-other-jurisdictions/	https://www.schatz.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/forest_act_summary.pdf
		Canadian Customs Tariff Amendment	Canada	In force	NA		Companies - Importers	Importers of goods into Canada	All		All			NA	2020	To prohibit importing goods produced or manufactured by forced labor.			All sizes	Entire supply chain		No		Forced labour and child labor			Yes	Yes, implicitly	No		No		Yes	Yes, implicitly, to prevent illegal imports	Yes	Importers are responsible for ensuring that any goods that they are importing into Canada are compliant with Canadian law. It is the responsibility of the importer to conduct due diligence on its supply chains to ensure that goods it imports into Canada are not mined, manufactured or produced wholly or in part by forced labour.	No		Not explicitly mentioned		No							The Canada Border Services Agency (“CBSA”) is responsible for enforcing prohibitions under the Customs Tariff. Shipments containing goods suspected of being produced by forced labour will be detained at the border for inspection by a border services officer. If in the judgement of the officer the goods were produced by forced labour, the officer will apply the tariff classification under chapter 9897 and prohibit the goods from entering Canada. Determinations are made on a case-by-case basis, based on available supporting evidence and analysis. Importers of goods classified under tariff item No. 9897.00.00 may appeal the classification as prohibited, re-export the goods or abandon the goods. The goods may then be detained under section 101 of the Customs Act, and subsequently disposed of, abandoned or exported as provided under section 102(1) of the Customs Act. CBSA has yet to institute any sector-specific guidance or rules, and appears to be taking a complaint-based approach with regards to seizing goods suspected of being manufactured by forced labour. For example, it is asking persons with information on goods produced by forced labour to call into its “Border Watch Tip Line”.	Yes	Illegal goods may be detained or destroyed. Aside from reputational risk, companies that import such goods, even inadvertently, can be subject to Administrative Monetary Penalties now that the import ban has entered into force, and potentially additional legal consequences depending on the particulars of a situation.						Not mentioned		Not mentioned		Not mentioned			Risk assessment, verification	Low	Only acts upon complaints, not well defined implementation procedure or guidance yet. Origin emphasis might align with US law above		https://www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/publications/dm-md/d9/d9-1-6-eng.pdf	https://www.aim-progress.com/storage/resources/Ropes%20&%20Gray_AIM-Porgress_Corporate%20Social%20Responsibility%20Legislation%20Summary%20(February%202022).pdf	https://www.canadaregulatoryreview.com/canada-prohibits-goods-made-from-forced-labour-with-additional-modern-slavery-legislation-in-the-works/	https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/trnsprnc/brfng-mtrls/prlmntry-bndrs/20210625/10-en.aspx	https://mcmillan.ca/insights/combatting-forced-labour-in-supply-chains-from-a-canadian-customs-perspective/
		Proposed Australian Customs Amendment (Banning Goods Produced by Forced Labour)	Australia	Failed to pass	NA		Companies - Importers	Importers of goods into Australia	All		All			2021	NA	To prohibit importing goods produced or manufactured by forced labor.	Passed in Senate in 2021, read in House in November 2021. The original bill (proposed in 2021) did not progress through the House of Representatives prior to the dissolution of the 46th Parliament. In November 2022, Senator Jordon Steele-John introduced the same legislation as a private senator's bill, which however did not receive government support. The bill would amend the Customs Act to ensure a ban on the import of goods produced by forced labour. Further steps will be taken by the Australian Greens to move an amendment in the Senate to the Customs Legislation Amendment (Controlled Trials and Other Measures) Bill 2022 to legislate the forced labour ban		All sizes	Entire supply chain		No		Forced labor			Yes	Yes, implicitly	No		No		Yes	Yes, implicitly, to prevent illegal imports	Yes	Yes implicitly, Prohibit the importation into Australia of goods produced or manufactured, in whole or in part, through the use of forced labor	No		Not explicitly mentioned		No							Australian Customs and Border Protection Service would be enforcing this Bill.	Yes	The Bill’s explanatory memorandum notes that the importation into Australia of any goods found to have been produced by forced labor would be subject to the penalties that apply to the importation of other goods designated as prohibited imports by regulations made under the Customs Act. The Australian government’s website notes that importing prohibited goods is punishable by up to 2,500 penalty units or 10 years imprisonment, or both. A penalty unit is currently A$222.	true	However, the Bill’s explanatory memorandum notes that the importation into Australia of any goods found to have been produced by forced labor would be subject to the penalties that apply to the importation of other goods designated as prohibited imports by regulations made under the Customs Act. The Australian government’s website notes that importing prohibited goods is punishable by up to 2,500 penalty units or 10 years imprisonment, or both. A penalty unit is currently A$222.				Not mentioned		Not mentioned		Not mentioned			Risk assessment, verification	Low	Not yet defined in scope and implementation		https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbills%2Fs1307_first-senate%2F0000%22;rec=0	https://www.aim-progress.com/storage/resources/Ropes%20&%20Gray_AIM-Porgress_Corporate%20Social%20Responsibility%20Legislation%20Summary%20(February%202022).pdf
		Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act (Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act amendment)	USA	In force	NA		Companies - Importers	Importers of goods into United States	All	All, though companies are referred to "List of Goods Produced by Child Labor or Forced Labor" to familiarize themselves with at-risk country and commodity combinations Specific to coffee: Any coffee importer into the USA, especially if importing from countries on list of forced labor likelihood - currently Brazil and Cote d'Ivoire	All			NA	2016	Section 307 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. §1307) prohibits importing any product that was mined, produced, or manufactured wholly or in part by forced labor, including forced or indentured child labor	Companies are referred to "List of Goods Produced by Child Labor or Forced Labor" to familiarize themselves with at-risk country and commodity combinations.		All sizes	Entire supply chain		No		Forced labor; Indentured labor; Child labor	“All work or service which is exacted from any person under the menace of any penalty for its nonperformance and for which the worker does not offer himself voluntarily.” – 19 U.S.C. §1307; language modeled on the ILO Forced Labor Convention, 1930.		Yes	Yes, implicitly. Know how goods are made, from raw materials to finished goods, by whom, where, and under what labor conditions (as evidence of reasonable care)	No		Yes	Establish reliable procedures to ensure that business is not importing prohibited goods Review CBP’s "Forced Labor" webpage, which includes a list of active withhold release orders and findings, as well as forced labor fact sheets Review the Department of Labor’s "List of Goods Produced by Child Labor or Forced Labor" to familiarize yourself with at-risk country and commodity combinations Review the International Labour Organization’s “Indicators of Forced Labour” booklet (all as evidence of reasonable care)	Yes	Vet new suppliers/vendors for forced labor risks through questionnaires or some other means (as evidence of reasonable care) Contracts with suppliers include terms that prohibit the use of forced labor, a time frame by which to take corrective action if forced labor is identified, and the consequences if corrective action is not taken, such as the termination of the contractual relationship (as evidence of reasonable care)	Yes	Establish a reliable procedure of conducting periodic internal audits to check for forced labor in supply chain (as evidence of reasonable care) Establish a reliable procedure of having a third-party auditor familiar with evaluating forced labor risks conduct periodic, unannounced audits of supply chain for forced labor (as evidence of reasonable care) Have a comprehensive and transparent social compliance system in place (as evidence of reasonable care)	No		Not explicitly mentioned		No		true	Develop a reliable program or procedure to maintain and produce any required customs entry documentation and supporting information (as evidence of reasonable care)				U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) enforces the prohibition. Any individual who has “reason to believe that any class of merchandise that is being, or is likely to be, imported into the United States” is being produced by forced labor may communicate that belief to CBP. Port directors and other principal customs officers must report such instances to the CBP Commissioner. Persons outside of CBP may choose to report to the Commissioner, to any port director, or online. Upon receipt of such a report, the Commissioner of CBP is required to initiate an investigation “as appears warranted” by the amount and reliability of the submitted information. If the Commissioner of CBP finds the information “reasonably but not conclusively indicates” that imports may be the product of forced labor, then she or he is to issue an order to withhold release of such goods (WRO) pending further instructions. CBP has usually issued WROs that target specific goods from specific producers. An importer has three months to contest a WRO and must demonstrate “every reasonable effort” has been made to determine both the source and type of labor used to produce the merchandise and its components. If the importer does not successfully contest the WRO and does not remove the merchandise at issue from the United States, CBP issues a formal finding, and will seize and destroy the merchandise. Beyond publishing the date, type of merchandise, manufacturer, and status of a WRO, CBP does not generally publish information about specific detentions, reexportations, exclusions, or seizures.	Yes	Imported goods in violation of the Act may be seized and forfeited/destroyed. In addition, violations of Section 307 can also result in fines.						Not mentioned		Not mentioned		Not mentioned			Risk assessment, risk mitigation, verification	Medium	Only focused on forced labor, not child labor alone which is prevalent in more origins. Important to know Brazilian supply chain		https://www.congress.gov/114/plaws/publ125/PLAW-114publ125.pdf	https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF11360	https://www.aim-progress.com/storage/resources/Ropes%20&%20Gray_AIM-Porgress_Corporate%20Social%20Responsibility%20Legislation%20Summary%20(February%202022).pdf	https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/ILAB/child_labor_reports/tda2019/2020_TVPRA_List_Online_Final.pdf
		Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act (UFLPA)	USA	In force	2021		Companies	The Act applies to entities organized under the laws of the United States or any jurisdiction within the United States, including foreign branches of such entities. This includes both United States citizens and lawful permanent residents, as well as entities operating within the United States.	All	The legislation can be considered applicable to all goods, wares, articles, and merchandise that are mined, produced, or manufactured wholly or in part with forced labor, unless otherwise exempted. The Act specifically identifies certain high-priority sectors for enforcement, which are cotton, tomatoes, and polysilicon.	Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region of China			2021	2021	The Act aims to ensure that the United States does not allow the importation of goods produced with forced labor, including those goods mined, produced, or manufactured wholly or in part in Xinjiang. The UFLPA strengthens the enforcement of Section 307 of the Tariff Act of 1930 by imposing a rebuttable presumption that goods, wares, articles, and merchandise mined, produced, or manufactured wholly or in part from the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (“XUAR”) are made with forced labor and thus prohibited from being imported to the U.S. A business wishing to import goods from the XUAR will be required to demonstrate with “clear and convincing evidence” that the presumption is incorrect, and the evidentiary standard is expected to be difficult for most businesses to meet.			All sizes	Entire supply chain; It requires a comprehensive assessment of the risk of importing goods produced with forced labor, including identifying threats in the supply chains that could lead to the importation of such goods		No		Forced labor			Yes	Yes, implicitly	No		No		No		No		No		No		No							U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) enforces the prohibition. The act also establishes a Forced Labor Enforcement Task Force, which is responsible for developing and implementing a strategy to prevent the importation of goods produced with forced labor from the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region of China. The task force is required to coordinate and collaborate with appropriate nongovernmental organizations and private sector entities to implement and update the strategy	Yes	The act authorizes the Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection to issue withhold release orders (WROs) to detain and exclude goods produced with forced labor from entering the United States. Companies found to be importing such goods may face penalties, including the seizure and forfeiture of the goods, as well as civil penalties						Not mentioned		Not mentioned		Not mentioned			Risk assessment, risk mitigation, verification	Low	Does not affect coffee trade		https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-117publ78/pdf/PLAW-117publ78.pdf	https://www.elevatelimited.com/insights/publications/supply-chain-due-diligence-legislation-map/
		Proposal for a Regulation on prohibiting products made with forced labour on the European Union market	European Union	Proposed	NA		Companies	All businesses making products available on the EU market or exporting from it would be covered by the new rules. Businesses falling within the scope of the proposed CSDDD would need to address the risks of forced labour in their supply chain, in line with the obligations under the future CSDDD legislation, which may be sufficient to ensure that no forced labour is involved in their respective supply chains. For these companies, no additional compliance needs will arise from the current proposal on prohibiting products made using forced labour.	All		All			2022	NA	The proposed regulation is intended to complete the EU legislative framework on forced labour. While there exist several pieces of legislation to tackle forced labour in EU (eg., Directive 2011/36/EU on combating human trafficking and Directive 2009/52/EC on sanctions against employers of migrants in an irregular situation. In February 2022, and the proposal for a directive on corporate sustainability due diligence (CSDDD)), no Union legislation exists that empowers Member States' authorities to ban a product made with forced labour from the market. While the CSDDD directive addresses companies' global value chains and would require companies to remedy possible violations of due diligence obligations, the proposal does not require Member States or companies to prohibit the placing and making available of any product on the market. The new proposed regulation on forced labour would therefore complement these measures with an obligation that specifically prohibits the placing of products made using forced labour on the EU market.	The Commission made its proposal in September 2022; it is currently being examined by both EU countries and the European Parliament, which will have to adopt a position on the file before entering into negotiations. Members of the European Parliament are proposing to extend the scope of a draft EU regulation prohibiting forced labour products from the EU market to key services and to introduce remediation for victims.		All sizes	Entire supply chain		No		Forced labor	‘Forced labour’ means forced or compulsory labour as defined in Article 2 of the Convention on Forced Labour, 1930 (No. 29) of the International Labour Organization (i.e. 'all work or service which is exacted from any person under the threat of a penalty and for which the person has not offered himself or herself voluntarily'), including forced child labour. It refers to situations in which persons are coerced to work either through the use of violence or intimidation, or by more indirect means such as manipulated debt, retention of identity papers or threats of denunciation to immigration authorities.		Yes	Yes, implicitly	No		Yes	Yes implicitly: Before initiating an investigation in accordance with Article 5(1), the competent authority shall request from the economic operators under assessment information on actions taken to identify, prevent, mitigate or bring to an end risks of forced labour in their operations and value chains with respect to the products under assessment	Yes	Yes implicitly, to prevent illegal imports: Before initiating an investigation in accordance with Article 5(1), the competent authority shall request from the economic operators under assessment information on actions taken to identify, prevent, mitigate or bring to an end risks of forced labour in their operations and value chains with respect to the products under assessment. The competent authority shall duly take into account where the economic operator demonstrates that it carries out due diligence on the basis of identified forced labour impact in its supply chain, adopts and carries out measures suitable and effective for bringing to an end forced labour in a short period of time	Yes	Yes, implicitly: Before initiating an investigation in accordance with Article 5(1), the competent authority shall request from the economic operators under assessment information on actions taken to identify, prevent, mitigate or bring to an end risks of forced labour in their operations and value chains with respect to the products under assessment	No	Though maybe required by the Parliament	Yes	Yes, implicitly: Before initiating an investigation in accordance with Article 5(1), the competent authority shall request from the economic operators under assessment information on actions taken to identify, prevent, mitigate or bring to an end risks of forced labour in their operations and value chains with respect to the products under assessment. The competent authority shall duly take into account where the economic operator demonstrates that it carries out due diligence on the basis of identified forced labour impact in its supply chain, adopts and carries out measures suitable and effective for bringing to an end forced labour in a short period of time. Remediation for victims may be introduced via Parliament	No							Member States would be responsible for the enforcement of the regulation's provisions. Customs authorities would identify and stop products made using forced labour at EU borders. National authorities would be empowered to withdraw products made using forced labour from the EU market, following an investigation. The emphasis will be likely on businesses at early stages of the value chain (importers, manufacturers, producers, product suppliers) since the competent authorities appointed by member states are to follow a risk-based approach, meaning that they assess the risk of a violation of the above-mentioned prohibition; if the competent authority determines that there is a substantiated concern of such a violation, it will be required to investigate the products and economic operators concerned	Yes	Penalties for non-compliance shall be determined by the Member States, and shall be effective, proportionate and dissuasive. Also, should they find evidence for suspicions that the products were produced using forced labour, they would take a decision to order the withdrawal of the products already placed on the market, and prohibit placing the products on the market, or exporting them. The decision would be communicated to the company concerned, which would be obliged to dispose of the products in question (Article 6).						Not mentioned		Not mentioned		Partially	Somewhat: Competent authorities are encouraged to take into account the size and resources of the relevant company when requestiong information and setting time limits for the provision of information		Risk assessment, mitigation, verification	Medium	Only focused on forced labor, not child labor alone which is prevalent in more origins. Yet important to know supply chains			https://single-market-economy.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2022-09/COM-2022-453_en.pdf	https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_22_5415	https://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/document/EPRS_BRI(2023)739356#:~:text=On%2014%20September%202022%2C%20the,to%20promote%20decent%20work%20worldwide.	https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2023/739356/EPRS_BRI(2023)739356_EN.pdf
		Canadian Xinjiang Manufactured Goods Importation Prohibition Act	USA	Proposed	NA		Companies - Importers	Importers of goods into Canada	All		Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region of China			2021	NA	To prohibit the importation of goods manufactured or produced wholly or in part in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region of the People’s Republic of China.	It was introduced in the first session of the current (44th) Parliament; its latest status is that it is in second reading (Senate), as of May 10, 2022		All sizes	Entire supply chain		No		Forced labor	Implicitly: Forced labor, but implemented via blanket ban		Yes	Yes, implicitly	No		No		No		No		No		No		No							The Canada Border Services Agency (“CBSA”) is responsible for enforcing prohibitions under the Customs Tariff. Shipments containing goods suspected of being produced by forced labour will be detained at the border for inspection by a border services officer. If in the judgement of the officer the goods were produced by forced labour, the officer will apply the tariff classification under chapter 9897 and prohibit the goods from entering Canada. Determinations are made on a case-by-case basis, based on available supporting evidence and analysis. Importers of goods classified under tariff item No. 9897.00.00 may appeal the classification as prohibited, re-export the goods or abandon the goods. The goods may then be detained under section 101 of the Customs Act, and subsequently disposed of, abandoned or exported as provided under section 102(1) of the Customs Act. CBSA has yet to institute any sector-specific guidance or rules, and appears to be taking a complaint-based approach with regards to seizing goods suspected of being manufactured by forced labour. For example, it is asking persons with information on goods produced by forced labour to call into its “Border Watch Tip Line”.	No							Not mentioned		Not mentioned		Not mentioned			Supply chain restructuring	Low	Does not affect coffee trade		https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/S-204/first-reading	https://www.elevatelimited.com/insights/publications/supply-chain-due-diligence-legislation-map/
	Trade-based legislation
		Bill for the creation of a General Law on Corporate Responsibility	Mexico	Failed to pass	NA		All business, including schools	Operating in the country (including foreign enterprises)	All	textile, mining, energy, tourism and agri-food sectors with particularly high level of compliance standard	All			2020	NA	In 2020, a new General Law of Corporate Responsibility and Due Diligence (Ley General de Responsabilidad Empresarial y Debida Diligencia Corporativa) was proposed in the federal Senate to promote responsible behaviour of companies and avoid negative impacts that may be associated with their activities in relation to supply chains and other commercial relations, workers' conditions, human rights and environmental protection, among other things. However, this proposal did not gain traction and has not been discussed in legislative commissions.			All sizes	Entire supply chain		Environmental protection		Human rights	Covers internationally recognized human rights		Yes	Yes, implicitly	No		Yes		Yes		Yes		Yes		Yes		Yes		true	CSR reports and due diligence reports would be gathered and made public in a public registry				The law would be enforced by the Secretaria de la Economia (Economics Ministry)	Yes	Depending on level of responsibility, some of the penalties may be given out at an individual level	true	Depending on level of responsibility, some of the penalties may be given out at an individual level				Not mentioned		Not mentioned		Yes	Micro enterprises and SMEs only require to have books in order and include a commitment to human rights protection in their foundational documents;		Risk assessment, risk mitigation, verification, remediation	Low	Did not pass		https://infosen.senado.gob.mx/sgsp/gaceta/64/3/2020-10-06-1/assets/documentos/Inic_Morena_Sen_German_Diligencia_Corporativa.pdf	https://www.mondaq.com/mexico/corporatecommercial-law/1231984/esg-comparative-guide
		Proposed Dutch Responsible and Sustainable International Business Conduct Bill	Netherlands	Proposed	NA		Companies	All companies, with additional due diligence duties for large undertakings. Duty of care is applicable to all companies in all economic sectors – including the financial sector – that are registered in the Netherlands or the EU, or sell products or services on the Dutch market. This means the bill also applies to so-called ‘letterbox companies’, such as large multinational enterprises that are headquartered in the Netherlands only on paper. The due diligence duty is focused on large undertakings that engage in activities in countries outside the Netherlands	All		All			2021	NA	The Act aims to mitigate human rights risks, including environmental risks that can lead to human rights violations, in global supply chains.	On 2 November 2022, the relevant members submitted a revised draft of the bill on Responsible and Sustainable International Business Conduct (Initiatiefwet verantwoord en duurzaam internationaal ondernemen) (the “Bill”) to the Dutch House of Representatives. This new draft was adjusted to be more in line with the CSDDD as well as the German and French due diligence laws. If adopted, the law would replace the Child Labour Due Diligence Law, which was passed by the Senate in 2019.		Duty of care for all undertakings; due diligence duties for large undertakings which are defined as: > 250 employees; or total balance sheet value of > 20 million euros; or net turnover > 40 million euros (2 out of 3 must apply)	Own operations and subsidiaries; all business relationships in the entire global value chain. Business relationships include an undertaking’s contractors, subcontractors or other legal entities in the value chain, including State entities, which are in any way linked to the undertaking’s activities (including its financiers and (re-)insurers). Essentially, the due diligence obligation applies to all of an undertaking’s upstream and downstream activities, as well as a wide range of its relationships and is therefore extremely broad.		Adverse environmental impact	Negative impact on environment including climate and violation of animal welfare regulations	Human rights; Freedom of association and collective bargaining; Discrimination; Forced labor; Child labor; Occupational health and safety; Slavery; Exploitation			Yes	Yes, implicitly	No		Yes	Annually investigate, collect and analyse the potential and actual risks of adverse impacts on human rights, climate change and the environment in their own activities as well as those of their business relationships (only for large undertakings with activities outside the Netherlands)	Yes	Draw up an action plan to prevent and mitigate any detected potential and actual negative impacts of their activities and those of their business relationships. Undertakings ensure that the detected potential and actual risks of adverse impacts on climate change are adequately tackled and, to that end, draw up a climate plan to prevent, mitigate or terminate these risks of adverse impacts of their activities and those of business relationships (only for large undertakings with activities outside the Netherlands, though all undertakings have the duty to take all measures that may be reasonably required of them to prevent impacts that they know of or suspect)	Yes	Undertakings assess their involvement in the identified actual or potential risks of adverse impacts in order to decide on the right approach to preventing, mitigating or terminating these risks (only for large undertakings with activities outside the Netherlands)	Yes	Undertakings ensure that a well-functioning remediation mechanism is in place or that it cooperates with an existing remediation mechanism. Via this remediation mechanism, a stakeholder can file a complaint and submit the complaint to the company. If the complaint is upheld, the company must take certain steps, depending on its level of involvement. If a company has caused or contributed to or is – via the activities of a business relation – directly related to the adverse effect, the company must, in consultation with the individual concerned, provide or contribute to adequate redress.	Yes	Undertakings carry out their action plan, with or without cooperation from external parties and stakeholders. If an undertaking is unable to tackle all potential and actual risks of adverse impacts immediately, it will tackle them based on the prioritisation referred to in Section 2.3.1(4). Once the risks having the most severe impacts have been tackled, the undertaking will tackle the less severe risks of adverse impacts on human rights and the environment. If an undertaking’s efforts to prevent or mitigate the adverse impacts that an activity has on human rights or the environment do not produce any results, the undertaking will ultimately terminate the activity if it causes or contributes to these adverse impacts. If an adverse impact on human rights or the environment actually occurs due to an activity of an undertaking’s business relationship, the undertaking will use its leverage to influence the business relationship to prevent, mitigate or terminate that impact. If an undertaking’s efforts to prevent, mitigate or terminate the adverse impacts of an activity of a business relationship do not produce any results, the undertaking will ultimately terminate the relationship with the business relationship in a responsible manner either temporarily or permanently. If an undertaking has caused or contributed to adverse impacts on human rights or the environment or is directly linked to them through a business relationship’s activities, in consultation with the stakeholder it will provide or enable adequate remediation or contribute to it (only for large undertakings with activities outside the Netherlands).	Yes	Undertakings monitor the application and effectiveness of their policy and measures of due diligence annually (only for large undertakings with activities outside the Netherlands)	true	Undertakings draw up a policy and lay it down in a policy document, in which they commit to the obligations to exercise due diligence in the value chain. The policy document is prepared in consultation with, in any event, the stakeholders, experts and business relationships. Undertakings annually report on their policy and measures of due diligence. This includes the risk-analysis results; the selected priorities; implementation of the action plan and the climate plan; and the measures taken to prevent, mitigate or end the adverse effect risks. Reporting would again be the responsibility of the director introducing and implementing the policy. The reporting obligation under the RSIBC bill would be part of the non-financial information in the management report and would be - for that reason - subject to the Dutch Financial Crimes Act. (only for large undertakings with activities outside the Netherlands)				The Dutch Authority for Consumers and Markets (Autoriteit Consument en Markt) (the “ACM”) will monitor compliance and enforce the Bill in cooperation with other regulatory bodies in the Netherlands and within the European Union	Yes	The ACM would be authorised to issue administrative orders; administrative fines of up to a maximum of 10 percent of net sales; or penalties for each breach of the due diligence obligations as included in the RSIBC bill. Violation of the RSIBC bill's reporting obligation would constitute an economic crime.	true	The Bill also provides for the directors’ criminal liability under the Dutch Economic Offences Act (Wet op de economische delicten) if an undertaking (repeatedly) fails to report annually on the implementation and execution of the due diligence policy.	true			Not mentioned		Not mentioned		Yes	Small undertakings do not have to follow the full due diligence requirements, however they do have a duty of care as follows: Any undertaking that knows or should reasonably suspect that its own activities or those of its business relationships may have adverse impacts on human rights or the environment in countries outside the Netherlands must: a. take all measures that may be reasonably required of it to prevent such impacts; b. to the extent that such impacts cannot be prevented: mitigate or reverse them to the extent possible and, where necessary, enable remediation; c. if such impacts cannot be sufficiently mitigated: refrain from the relevant activity or terminate the relationship in so far as that may reasonably be expected from the undertaking.		Risk assessment, risk mitigation, remediation	High	Proactive enforcement; all companies in scope may be reviewed for implementation and may be fined or given prison sentences if repeated violation		https://zoek.officielebekendmakingen.nl/kst-35761-2.pdf	https://www.mvoplatform.nl/en/dutch-bill-on-responsible-and-sustainable-international-business-conduct-a-major-step-towards-protecting-human-rights-and-the-environment-worldwide/#:~:text=The%20bill%20proposes%20a%20duty,with%20more%20than%20250%20employees.	https://www.lastradainternational.org/news/new-dutch-bill-for-responsible-and-sustainable-international-business-conduct/	https://www.mvoplatform.nl/en/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/2021/03/Bill-for-Responsible-and-Sustainable-International-Business-Conduct-unofficial-translation-MVO-Platform.pdf	https://www.somo.nl/the-next-step-for-corporate-accountability-in-the-netherlands/
		Law on Child Labour Due Diligence	Netherlands	Adopted	NA; unclear		Companies	All companies selling or supplying goods or services to Dutch consumers, no matter where they are based or registered, with no exemptions for legal form or size	All		All			2014	2019	To reduce child labor in the supply chain.	The Law was initially expected to come into force in mid-2022; yet with the tabling of the revised proposal for a Responsible and Sustainable International Business Conduct Bill it seems that the coming into force of the Child Labor Due Diligence Law is further delayed as it is expected that upon adoption of the Bill the Law will be revoked.		All sizes	Own operations and subsidiaries; all suppliers and subcontractors in the entire global supply chain		No		Child labor	For purposes of the Act, child labor includes any form of work performed by persons under 18 and that is included among the worst forms of child labor referred to in Article 3 of the Worst Forms of Child Labor Convention, 1999. Under the Convention, this comprises: all forms of slavery or practices similar to slavery, such as the sale and trafficking of children, debt bondage and serfdom and forced or compulsory labor, including forced or compulsory recruitment of children for use in armed conflict; • the use, procuring or offering of a child for prostitution, for the production of pornography or for pornographic performances; • the use, procuring or offering of a child for illicit activities, in particular for the production and trafficking of drugs as defined in the relevant international treaties; and • work which, by its nature or the circumstances in which it is carried out, is likely to harm the health, safety or morals of children. If the work takes place in the territory of a state that is party to the Minimum Age Convention, 1973, in addition to the foregoing, child labor will include any form of work prohibited by the laws of that state in implementation of the Convention. If the work takes place in the territory of a state that is not a party to the Minimum Age Convention, child labor will further include: • any form of work performed by persons who are subject to compulsory schooling or who have not yet reached the age of 15 and • any form of work performed by persons under 18 if the work, by virtue of its nature or the conditions under which it is performed, may endanger the health, safety or morality of young persons, except that child labor will not include light work (as defined in the Minimum Age Convention), carried out for a maximum of 14 hours a week by persons who have reached the age of 13. “Light work” is defined in the Minimum Age Convention as work by persons 13 to 15 years of age which is: • not likely to be harmful to their health or development and • not such as to prejudice their attendance at school, their participation in vocational orientation or training programs approved by a competent authority or their capacity to benefit from the instruction received.		Yes	Yes, implicitly	No		Yes	Investigate their supply chains to assess whether there is reasonable presumption that the goods and services to be supplied have been produced with child labour	Yes	Create an action plan to avoid the use of child labour	Yes	Investigate their supply chains to assess whether there is reasonable presumption that the goods and services to be supplied have been produced with child labour	Yes	Any natural person or legal entity whose interests are affected by the actions or omissions of a subject company relating to compliance with the Act may submit a complaint to the designated regulator. The complaint must contain a concrete indication of non-compliance by an identifiable party. In the first instance, an aggrieved party must work with the subject company to resolve the complaint. The regulator only may address a complaint after it has been dealt with by the company, or six months after the submission of the complaint to the company without it having been addressed.	Yes	If the investigation indicates that there is a reasonable presumption that child labour has contributed to the product or service, the company is expected to draw up an action plan in line with international guidelines (the UNGPs or the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises) to prevent this impact	No		true	Companies covered by the law have to submit a statement to regulatory authorities declaring that they have carried out due diligence related to child labour in their full supply chains. Companies only have to submit the statement once; it has a long-term validity and there is currently no provision about the length of time for which it is valid.				No proactive enforcement by the regulatory authority. Only complaints submitted by a third party will trigger enforcement. In the case of a complaint by third party and if the regulatory authorities determine that the company has not conducted due diligence in line with the legislation, the regulator provides the company legally-binding instructions and a timeframe for execution. If that is not followed, the company can be fined.	Yes	A company can be fined up to €8,200 for failing to submit a statement declaring that it exercises due diligence. If a company fails to carry out due diligence in accordance with the Act or to draw up a plan of action, or to comply with any further requirements that are established pertaining to due diligence and the plan of action, a fine of up to 10% of the worldwide annual turnover of the company can be imposed. However, the Act provides that a fine will not be imposed until after a binding instruction has been issued to the company. A time limit may be set for complying with the instruction.	true	If a company is fined twice within five years, the next violation can lead to imprisonment of the responsible director.				Not mentioned		Not mentioned		Partially	If a company only receives goods or services from other companies that have issued a declaration, it is not required to issue its own declaration. Other exceptions to the reporting requirements of the Act may be established by GAO.		Investigation of child labor risk in supply chain, action plan	Medium	Need to understand supply chain better and address adverse effects, but no proactive enforcement (yet), will rely on complaints made		https://www.eerstekamer.nl/behandeling/20170207/gewijzigd_voorstel_van_wet/document3/f=/vkbkk8pud2zt.pdf	https://www.mvoplatform.nl/en/frequently-asked-questions-about-the-new-dutch-child-labour-due-diligence-law/	https://trustrace.com/knowledge-hub/dutch-child-labour-due-diligence-act	https://www.aim-progress.com/storage/resources/Ropes%20&%20Gray_AIM-Porgress_Corporate%20Social%20Responsibility%20Legislation%20Summary%20(February%202022).pdf
		Human Rights and Sustainability Due Diligence Law	Spain	Proposed	NA		Companies	Transnational Spanish companies and other transnational. All companies operating in the Spanish market, regardless of their size or legal form	All		All			2022	NA	The proposed law requires Spanish companies and international companies operating in Spain to impose due diligence strategies to address and mitigate any risks relating to human rights or environmental violations within their supply chains.	The Spanish government opened a consultation from February to March 2022 to gather stakeholders views on various aspects related to its adoption and help to produce a draft text. So far, no draft text has been forthcoming.		All sizes	Entire supply chain		Environmental protection	Aims to ensure that companies respect environmental standards in all activities carried out along their global value chains	Labour and human rights			Yes	Yes, implicitly	No		Yes	Companies are required to conduct a mapping or assessment of potential risks in their operations and supply chains. Companies are expected to identify and assess potential risks related to human rights and environmental impacts in their operations and supply chains as part of their due diligence process	Yes	Companies must implement mechanisms of due diligence, including the adoption and development of due diligence plans, to prevent, eliminate, mitigate, and/or remedy violations of human rights and environmental standards throughout their value chain	Yes	Yes, implicitly	Yes	Companies must establish mechanisms to receive and address complaints related to human rights and environmental impacts resulting from their activities	Yes	Companies must adopt and implement measures to prevent, eliminate, mitigate, and/or remedy violations of human rights and environmental standards throughout their value chain	No			companies are required to adopt and develop due diligence plans as part of their mechanisms of due diligence but the legislation does not specify where or how these plans or any other information should be made accessible				The responsibility for monitoring and enforcing compliance lies with a competent, public, and independent authority appointed by the Spanish government (not specified in the proposal)	Yes	The proposal foresees a system of sanctions on companies that fail to comply with their obligations. However, the specific types of penalties and disincentives at the company-level are not explicitly described in the legislation.						Not mentioned		Not mentioned		Not mentioned			Risk assessment, risk mitigation, verification, remediation, extraterritorial liability	Medium to high	Depends on the final legal text		https://www.mdsocialesa2030.gob.es/servicio-a-la-ciudadania/proyectos-normativos/documentos/220208_consulta_publica_definitiva.pdf	https://www.herbertsmithfreehills.com/insight/spain-launches-consultation-on-human-rights-and-sustainability-due-diligence-law	https://ergonassociates.net/new-action-in-spain-on-mandatory-human-rights-due-diligence-and-forced-labour/	https://www.elevatelimited.com/insights/publications/supply-chain-due-diligence-legislation-map/
		Framework for Business and Human Rights (PL 572/2022)	Brazil	Proposed	NA		Companies	Companies domiciled or economically active in the Brazilian territory are liable for Human Rights violations in the course of their business operation, caused either directly or indirectly. This bill is to be enforced on business companies, including their subsidiaries, branches, subcontractors, suppliers, and any other entity in their global value chain. It also includes financial institutions.	All		All			2022	NA	Seeks to create a national regulatory framework on business and human rights that would establish guidelines for companies to respect human rights and for the public sector to promote public policies on the topic.	Bill 572 was directed to the Committees of Human Rights and Minorities (CDHM) and Constitution and Justice (CCJ). It is currently awaiting the opinion of the Rapporteur of the Committee on Economic Development.		All sizes	Business companies, including their subsidiaries, branches, subcontractors, suppliers, and any other entity in their global value chain.		Environmental rights	In Chapter IV, it states that companies should have a political commitment to respect human rights, including environmental rights. In Chapter XV, it mentions that business companies must support impact studies on social, labor, and environmental matters prior to the permit of any economic operation. Additionally, in Chapter XIX, it states that business companies must endorse social participation during the elaboration and selection of indicators and methodologies for impact studies on social, labor, and environmental matters	Human rights	Human rights defined in a broad way; singles out the territorial rights and the self-determination rights of indigenous peoples, quilombolas, and traditional communities, as well as communities living by river banks, along the coast, and in the countryside		Yes	Yes, implicitly	Yes	Companies are required to implement staff training on sustainability risks and mitigation, due diligence procedures, and other elements related to the legislation. The State entities are obligated to promote a training course for public servants on human rights and business companies, focusing on public administration liability and corporate operations. This training must be comprehensive and conducted by experts in the field. Additionally, companies must implement protocols for control, prevention, and compensation of human rights violations, indicating the need for staff training on these matters.	Yes	Companies are required to conduct a risk analysis on Human Rights risks along the entire production chain, including labor and environmental risks. This analysis should include a scale for risk priority and risk urgency to implement measures and strategies to mitigate identified risks. The company's policies on the matter, including the expectation that all personnel in the production chain should also regard the urgency of Human Rights, must be made public.	Yes	Companies are required to implement a due diligence process to prevent, identify, monitor, and compensate for Human Rights violations, including social, labor, and environmental rights. This process involves several steps, such as conducting a risk analysis on Human Rights throughout the entire production chain, implementing measures and strategies to mitigate identified risks, and monitoring ongoing actions. The aim is to ensure that companies take proactive measures to reduce or mitigate the risks they are likely to face. Companies are also required to prepare a six-monthly periodic report on human rights risks.	Yes	Yes, implicitly companies are required to implement a due diligence process to identify, monitor, and compensate for Human Rights violations, including social, labor, and environmental rights. However, the document does not provide specific details on how companies should check for risks or compliance with policies.	No		Yes	Companies are required to take specific actions to end identified adverse impacts resulting from their business activities. They must carry out a due diligence process to prevent, identify, monitor, and compensate for Human Rights violations, including social, labor, and environmental rights. This includes ceasing the associated activity immediately in case of damage and avoiding collaboration or complicity with entities that violate Human Rights. In terms of remediation, companies are obligated to provide compensation for incurred harms resulting from their operations. In case of obligation for reparation, the violating company must create a Fund to cover the basic needs of the affected persons, groups, and communities until the completion of the full reparation process. The Fund's management includes representatives of the affected communities, the State, and the Public Defender's Office, with the Public Prosecutor's Office acting as a supervisor	Yes	Companies are required to undertake monitoring and evaluation of their procedures to prevent, identify, monitor, and compensate for Human Rights violations. The monitoring and evaluation should be continuous and recognize that risks for Human Rights violations may change over time as the company's activities and operational context develop. The company must also implement additional measures to prevent violations and ensure compliance with international and national frameworks.	true	Business companies must prepare a six-monthly periodic report on Human Rights, which will demonstrate: A summary of actions or projects to be implemented by the corporation in the following semester; a summary of actions or ongoing projects, also an evaluation of prevention actions already in place; a summary of ongoing reparation and compensation plans, containing an evaluation of results and the detailing of protocol changes in the coming projects with similar features regarding possible Human Rights violations; the company's political commitment to respect Human Rights, including labour and environmental rights, and its policies on the matter; details of personnel in charge of implementing action plans, as well as their schedule of completion; a risk analysis on Human Rights comprehending the entire production chain, including labour and environmental risks; and a risk analysis with a scale for risk priority and risk urgency to implement measures and strategies to mitigate identified risks and protocols to monitor ongoing actions and what remains to be implemented. The semestral reports on Human Rights must be sent to the Public Prosecutor's Office, at the federal and state level, and the Public Defender's Office, also including federal and state, as well as the National Human Rights Commission (CNDH). Business companies that, due to their operation characteristics, must elaborate a six-monthly periodic report on Human Rights, must also maintain on a website of unrestricted public access all sufficient information to assess the concrete adequacy of the company's performance for the prevention, evaluation, and compensation/reparation for Human Rights violations.				The Union, the States, the Federal District, and the Municipalities are obliged to implement measures for the prevention, protection, monitoring, and compensation of Human Rights violations in business activities. They must compel companies to implement participatory mechanisms intended to fully compensate the affected party. The State is obliged to demand full compensation for Human Rights violations that compromise the public treasury. Business operations must be accessible for external inspection by Union representatives and other class entities, as well as the Public Prosecutor's Office, and the Public Defender's Office.	Yes	Not criminal liability but the penalties and disincentives at the company-level include: Fines: Companies may be required to pay fines as a sanction for Human Rights violations. Loss of control: In cases of proved malicious intent, companies may lose control over their shares and assets, which can be transferred to workers. In extreme cases, the entity itself may face compulsory dissolution. Prohibition of incentives and contracts: Companies that violate Human Rights may be prohibited from receiving incentives and entering into contracts with public agencies until they comply with the provisions of the law. Piercing of the corporate veil: The Consumer Defence Code allows for the piercing of the corporate veil, which can hold companies accountable for Human Rights violations. Compensation: Companies are obligated to provide full compensation for damages caused by their business activities, including social, labor, and environmental rights violations.			true			Not mentioned		Not mentioned		Yes	Exemption from reporting requirement for micro-enterprises and small companies		Risk assessment, risk mitigation, verification, remediation, extraterritorial liability	High	Quite broad and detailed expectations (if adopted), detailed expectations of remediation fund for victims		https://www.stopcorporateimpunity.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/Bill-Proposal-572.pdf	https://www.ibanet.org/Mandatory-human-rights-due-diligence-Brazil	https://iclg.com/practice-areas/environmental-social-and-governance-law/brazil	https://homacdhe.com/index.php/2023/02/27/developments-of-the-human-rights-and-business-agenda-in-brazil/	https://www.stopcorporateimpunity.org/brazil-has-first-bill-to-hold-companies-accountable-for-violations-to-the-rights-of-affected-populations/	https://www.mattosfilho.com.br/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/one-pager-regulatory-overview-esg.pdf	https://www.camara.leg.br/proposicoesWeb/prop_mostrarintegra?codteor=2148124	https://www.camara.leg.br/propostas-legislativas/2317904
		Supply Chain Due Diligence Law (Lieferkettensorgfaltspflichtengesetz)	Germany	In force	2023		Companies	Large companies	All		All				2021	To mitigate human rights and specified environmental‐related risks that can lead to human rights violations			> 3,000 employees (as of 2023); > 1,0000 employees (as of 2024). Employees at subsidiary companies are included. Temporary workers also are included if their assignments last more than six months.	Own operations and subsidiaries (full obligations); Direct suppliers (full obligations); Indirect suppliers (companies are required to identify, prevent and mitigate impacts only if they obtain “substantiated knowledge” of abuses) A “supply chain” is all products and services of a subject company, and includes all steps in Germany and abroad necessary to produce the products and services, from extraction of raw materials to delivery to the end customers, including actions of an enterprise in its own business operations and the actions of direct and indirect suppliers.		Environmental risks	Environmental risks that have human rights implications, including (but not limited to): Manufacture of mercury‐added products; Use of mercury and mercury compounds in manufacturing; Illegal treatment of mercury waste; Illegal production and use of chemicals; Improper storage, handling, collection and disposal of waste; and Illegal export or import of hazardous waste; Environmental damage or excessive consumption; Unlawful eviction or taking of lands/water; and Improper use of security forces	Human rights; Child labor; Forced labor; Slavery; Occupational health and safety; Freedom of association; Conditions of employment; Living wage	A broad range of human rights risks, including (but not limited to): Child labor; Forced labor; Slavery; Disregard of occupational health and safety; Disregard of freedom of association; Unequal treatment in employment; Withholding adequate living wage.		Yes	Yes, implicitly	Yes	Training to manage risks	Yes	Conduct a risk analysis, at least annually, to identify human rights and environmental risks in the subject company’s own business and at its direct suppliers. A risk analysis should also be carried out on an as‐needed basis if the company expects a significant change or significant expansion of the risk situation in its supply chain. The results of the analysis must be communicated internally to relevant decision‐makers (e.g., the Board or the purchasing department).	Yes	Subject companies must engage in preventive measures to prevent potentially negative human rights and environmental impacts in the subject company’s own business and at its direct suppliers. At the subject company level, these measures will be required to include (1) issuance of a policy statement (discussed later in this Summary) regarding implementation of the human rights strategy, (2) procurement strategies and practices intended to avoid or mitigate identified risks, (3) training to manage risks and (4) risk‐based control measures to verify compliance. At the direct supplier level, these measures will be required to include (a) the consideration of human rights and environmental expectations in supplier selection, (b) contractual representations from direct suppliers to comply with human rights obligations and enforce them in the supply chain, (c) training to manage risks and (d) risk‐based control measures to verify compliance. The subject company must evaluate the effectiveness of the preventative measures at least annually.	Yes	Risk‐based control measures to verify compliance in direct suppliers. In addition, subject companies must establish an adequate and effective risk management system to identify, minimize, prevent and end covered adverse impacts if the subject company has caused of contributed to the risks or violation in its supply chain. The risk management system must consider the subject company’s employees, the employees in its supply chain and other persons directly affected by its economic activity or the economic activity of an enterprise in the supply chain. Specific requirements include:  Designating a responsible person (e.g., appointing a human rights officer);  Senior management must seek information on a regular basis (at least once per year) about the work of the person responsible for monitoring risk management; and  Incorporation of preventative measures and remedial measures.	Yes	Subject companies must adopt a complaint mechanism. The complaints procedure must be (1) written and publicly available, (2) impartial and confidential and (3) reviewed annually for effectiveness. The complaint mechanism must enable reporting of risks and violations that have arisen due to the economic actions of indirect suppliers.	Yes	If a violation has occurred or is imminent at the business or a direct supplier, the subject company must take remedial action to prevent, end or minimize the violation. If the violation occurs at a direct supplier and the subject company cannot end the violation in the foreseeable future, it must (1) implement a plan to end/minimize the violation, including a concrete timeline, (2) consider working with the direct supplier to develop and implement the plan to end/minimize the violation, and (3) consider temporary suspension of the direct supplier. Termination of a direct supplier is only required if (a) the violation is very serious, (b) the remediation plan does not remedy the situation, and (c) the subject company has no less severe means at its disposal and increasing the ability to exert influence has no prospect of success. The subject company must evaluate the effectiveness of the remedial measures at least annually.	Yes	Report should discuss how the subject company assesses the impact and effectiveness of the measures taken	true	A subject company must have a policy statement on the company’s human rights strategy that addresses, among other things, the subject company’s risk management system, the risk analysis process (including how risks are weighed, prioritized and communicated), preventative measure at the business and its direct suppliers, remedial action, the complaint process, risks identified and expectations on employees and suppliers. Subject companies will also be required to annually report on their diligence. The report will be required to discuss:  the human rights and environmental risks identified;  the measures taken to fulfill the duties of care, including arising out of complaints received through the complaint procedure;  how the subject company assesses the impact and effectiveness of the measures taken; and  the conclusions drawn from the assessment for future measures.; The report will be required to be published on the subject company’s website no later than four months after each fiscal year end and kept available for seven years. The report also will be required to be submitted to the Federal Office for Economic Affairs and Export Control				The Federal Office for Economic Affairs and Export Control will be charged with reviewing whether a subject company has complied with the Act. Among other things, it could require the subject company to address reporting deficiencies within a reasonable time period. It also will be empowered to, with three months’ notice, require a subject company to submit a plan to remedy substantive compliance deficiencies, as well as to provide a subject company with specific action items to fulfill its obligations. Subject companies that fail to comply with the requirements of the Act, either intentionally or negligently, also will be subject to administrative fines.	Yes	Depending upon the nature of the violation, the fine can be up to €8 million. However, if the subject company has an average annual turnover over the last three years of more than €400 million, the fine for failing to take remedial measures to address adverse human rights or environmental impacts in the subject company’s own business and at its direct suppliers can be up to 2% of average annual sales. If a potential fine exceeds €175,000, the subject company also can be excluded from public procurement for up to three years.			true			Not mentioned		Not mentioned		Partially	For indirect suppliers, companies are required to identify, prevent and mitigate impacts only if they obtain “substantiated knowledge” of abuses		Risk assessment, risk mitigation, remediation	High	Proactive enforcement; all companies in scope may be reviewed for implementation and may be fined up to 2% of annual average sales		https://www.bmas.de/EN/Services/Press/recent-publications/2021/act-on-corporate-due-diligence-in-supply-chains.html	https://www.aim-progress.com/storage/resources/Ropes%20&%20Gray_AIM-Porgress_Corporate%20Social%20Responsibility%20Legislation%20Summary%20(February%202022).pdf	https://www.dlapiper.com/en/us/insights/publications/2021/09/german-supply-chain-act-lieferkettensorgfaltspflichtengesetz/	https://www.taylorwessing.com/en/insights-and-events/insights/2021/07/overview-of-the-german-supply-chain-due-diligence-act
		Law on Transparency	Norway	In force	2022		Companies - Public limited companies; Reporting entities	Large enterprises, including: Public limited companies; Reporting entities of which shares, units, primary capital certificates or bonds are listed on a securities exchange, authorized marketplace or corresponding regulated market outside Norway; or Other reporting entities if stipulated in regulations laid down by the Ministry of Finance	All		All				2021	To promote the respect of businesses for fundamental human rights and decent working conditions in connection with the production of goods and the provision of services, and to provide public access to information about how businesses deal with adverse impacts of fundamental human rights and decent working conditions.	The Act will take effect on July 1, 2022 and the first public report must be published by June 30, 2023.		Sales > NOK 70 million; or balance sheet amount > NOK 35 million; or > 50 average number of employees (2 out of 3 must apply)	Own operations and subsidiaries; All suppliers and subcontractors in the entire global supply chain; All other business partners supplying goods or services directly to the company		No		Human rights; Conditions of employment	“Fundamental human rights” are internationally recognized human rights pursuant to, among other things, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the ILO core conventions on fundamental principles and rights at work. “Decent working conditions” (conditions of employment) are work that safeguards fundamental human rights in accordance with the foregoing instruments and health, safety and the environment and provides a living wage.		Yes	Yes, implicitly	No		Yes	Map and assess potential adverse impacts on fundamental human rights and decent working conditions that are directly related to its activities, products or services through suppliers or business partners	Yes	Implement appropriate measures to prevent adverse impacts based on the enterprise’s mapping and risk assessment; embed accountability in the enterprise’s policies	Yes	Map and assess actual adverse impacts on fundamental human rights and decent working conditions that the business has caused or contributed to, or that are directly related to its activities, products or services through suppliers or business partners	No		Yes	Implement appropriate measures to cease or limit adverse impacts based on the enterprise’s mapping and risk assessment; communicate with affected stakeholders regarding how adverse impacts are addressed; cooperate with remediation where required	Yes	Track the measures implemented and their results	true	Subject enterprises must publish an annually updated disclosure statement on the enterprise’s website containing at least the following: a general description of the business, its area of operation and guidelines and procedures for addressing actual and potential adverse impacts on fundamental human rights and decent working conditions; adverse impacts and significant risks of adverse impacts uncovered through due diligence; and the measures the enterprise has implemented or plans to take to cease or limit the adverse impacts, and the results or expected results of the measures. Companies are also required to respond to information requests about how they address potential and actual impacts on human rights and decent working conditions. Upon written request, third parties are entitled to information from the enterprise concerning how it addresses identified actual and potential adverse impact.Timing: The enterprise must provide the requested information within a reasonable time, but generally no later than three weeks after the request is received. However, if the request is burdensome, the enterprise has up to two months to provide the information. In the case of a burdensome request, the enterprise must, within the three‐week period, notify the requesting party in writing of the extension, the reasons for the extension and when the information is expected to be provided. If the information request is denied, the enterprise must provide the basis for the denial.				The Norwegian Consumer Authority will be responsible for enforcement of the Act. If there is a violation, it may issue an order requiring compliance or enjoin the violation and impose fines if the order or injunction is not complied with.	Yes	Companies violating the law face risk of injunction or fines should they fail to comply. The amount of the fine is determined by discretion, where the maximum rate can be up to 4% of the company's annual turnover, or 25 million Norwegian kroner, with the highest amount to be applied. When assessing the size of the fine or fee, factors such as the severity of the violation, whether it was preventable, whether the violation of the Transparency Act was committed to promote one's own interests, and the preventive effect of such a fee should be considered.	true	In the case of repeated violations, responsible individuals acting on behalf of the enterprise who intentionally or negligently violate the Act may be fined				Not mentioned		Not mentioned		Not mentioned			Risk assessment, risk mitigation, remediation and compensation for damages	Medium	Need to understand supply chain better and address adverse effects, includes requirement to respond to public information request within 2 months max, so should be prepared to have knowledge and action plans in place		https://www.stortinget.no/no/Saker-og-publikasjoner/Vedtak/Beslutninger/Lovvedtak/2020-2021/vedtak-202021-176/	https://www.sedex.com/norways-transparency-act-what-you-need-to-know/	https://forumfor.no/en/news/2021/forums-reactions-to-the-norwegian-due-diligence-law	https://www.aim-progress.com/storage/resources/Ropes%20&%20Gray_AIM-Porgress_Corporate%20Social%20Responsibility%20Legislation%20Summary%20(February%202022).pdf
		Slave-Free Business Certification Act	USA	Failed to pass	NA		An individual, a corporation, a partnership, an association, a joint-stock company, a trust, any unincorporated organization, or a government or political subdivision	An individual, a corporation, a partnership, an association, a joint-stock company, a trust, any unincorporated organization, or a government or political subdivision that is involved in the mining, production, or manufacture of goods for sale. The legislation does not specifically require the company to have a headquarters or be incorporated in the country issuing the law. Instead, it focuses on the company's involvement in the specified industries and its annual gross receipts. In practice, businesses that are subject to US law	All		All			2022	NA	The Act requires businesses with annual revenue greater than $500 million to audit their supply chains for labor practices or human trafficking activities that violate specified national or international standards and report the results to the Department of Labor.	This bill was introduced on 02/03/2022 in a previous session of Congress, but it did not receive a vote and therefore died in Congress.		Business entity (defined in the type of entity) having worldwide gross receipts that exceed $500,000,000	Entire supply chain		No		Forced Labour	Defined as "any labor practice or human trafficking activity in violation of national and international standards, including— (A) International Labor Organization Convention No. 182; (B) the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 (22 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.); and (C) any act that would violate the criminal provisions related to slavery and human trafficking under chapter 77 of title 18, United States Code, if the act had been committed within the jurisdiction of the United States"		Yes	Yes, implicitly	Only disclosure	Only disclosure, on training provided on recognizing and preventing forced labor, particularly with respect to mitigating risks within the supply chains of products and on-site services of the covered business entity, to employees, including management personnel, of the covered business entity who have direct responsibility for supply chain management or on-site services	Yes	The bill states that the covered business entity must conduct and disclose the results of an audit of its supply chain and on-site services to identify and address risks of forced labor, including risks beyond the first-tier suppliers	Yes	The bill states that the covered business entity must conduct and disclose the results of an audit of its supply chain and on-site services to identify and address risks of forced labor. It further requires the covered business entity to take appropriate actions to mitigate such risks	Yes	The bill states that the covered business entity must conduct and disclose the results of an audit of its supply chain and on-site services to identify and address risks of forced labor, including risks beyond the first-tier suppliers. This audit is intended to assess compliance with the policies and identify any instances of forced labor. The Bill specifies in detail requirements for the audits, including the use of worker and management interviews	No		Yes	The bill states that the covered business entity must conduct and disclose the results of an audit of its supply chain and on-site services to identify and address risks of forced labor. It further requires the covered business entity to take appropriate actions to mitigate such risks, which may include providing remediation and compensation. For each violation or suspected violation of forced labor laws, businesses have to provide a description of any corrective and protective actions recommended for the direct supplier consisting of, at a minimum— (i) the issues relating to the violation and any root causes of the violation; (ii) the implementation of a solution; and (iii) a method to check the effectiveness of the solution	Yes	A method to check the effectiveness of proposed solutions is required information	true	Companies are required to provide a report containing specific information to be compliant. The report should include the covered business entity's policies to prevent the use of forced labor, details of the audit conducted on the supply chain and on-site services, and the actions taken to mitigate risks of forced labor. The report needs to be made accessible to the public. The bill states that the covered business entity should publish the report on its public website and provide a conspicuous and easily understood link on the homepage that leads to the report. If the covered business entity does not have a public website, it should provide the report in written form to any consumer who requests it				The bill does not specifically mention a government office responsible for monitoring and enforcing compliance. However, it states that not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall promulgate rules to carry out this Act	Yes	Penalties and disincentives exist at the company level. The bill states that the Secretary of Labor may assess civil damages of up to $100,000,000 against a covered business entity that violates any requirement of the bill. Additionally, the Secretary of Labor may assess punitive damages of up to $500,000,000 against a covered business entity or supplier (including a direct supplier, secondary supplier, or on-site service provider) that *willfully* violated the reporting requirement or retaliated against any worker for participating in interviews under section 3(a)(1) or providing information necessary for the audit requirements.		Penalties and disincentives exist at the company level. The bill states that the Secretary of Labor may assess civil damages of up to $100,000,000 against a covered business entity that violates any requirement of the bill. Additionally, the Secretary of Labor may assess punitive damages of up to $500,000,000 against a covered business entity or supplier (including a direct supplier, secondary supplier, or on-site service provider) that *willfully* violated the reporting requirement or retaliated against any worker for participating in interviews under section 3(a)(1) or providing information necessary for the audit requirements.				Not mentioned		Not mentioned		Not mentioned			Need to conduct annual audits of supply chain that include worker and management interviews to uncover, mitigate and remediate forced labour issues	High	May involve significant expenses and supply chain traceability requirements		https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/3578/text	https://www.elevatelimited.com/insights/publications/supply-chain-due-diligence-legislation-map/	http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:15%20section:77b%20edition:prelim)
		Proposal for a regulation on deforestation-free products	European Union	Adopted	NA		Companies - All operators and traders	All operators and traders who place, make available or export the following products from the EU market: palm oil, beef, timber, coffee, cocoa and soy. The rules also apply to a number of derived products such as leather, chocolate and furniture.	Palm oil; beef; timber; coffee; cocoa; soy; derived products	The rules also apply to a number of derived products (products that have been fed or have been made using the relevant commodities) such as leather, chocolate and furniture. The Regulation shall not apply to goods if they are produced entirely from material that has completed its lifecycle and would otherwise have been discarded as waste, as defined in Article 3(1) of Directive 2008/98/EC2. This exemption does not apply to by-products of a manufacturing process, where that process involved material that was not waste as defined in Article 3 (1) of that Directive.	Risk-based	Current negotiating position is that due diligence obligations will depend on the Commission's determination level of deforestation risk of the national or subnational jurisdiction that the product is sourced from After the entry into force of the proposed regulation, the European Commission will assess risk of countries based on the mentioned assessment criteria, will decide on the countries' risk levels in due course and will publish the risk levels of countries in a publicly available list. Generally, the Commission can identify countries as having a low, standard or high risk of producing goods that are not compliant with the proposed regulation - thus triggering different levels of scrutiny. The proposed regulation provides for a variety of assessment criteria in this respect, such as (inter alia) the rate of deforestation and forest degradation, rate of expansion of agriculture land for relevant products or whether NDCs under the Paris Agreement cover emissions and removals from agriculture, forestry and land use. The objective of this benchmarking system is to incentivise countries to ensure stronger forest protection and governance and to facilitate trade. Products from high risk countries would be subject to enhanced scrutiny by competent authorities of Member States (regarding the role of competent authorities, see question 5 below). Where this applies, competent authorities need to ensure that the checks they carry out on an annual basis are covering at least 15% of companies (placing on or exporting from the EU market products from high risk countries) and 15% of the quantity of relevant products produced in high-risk countries or parts thereof. For standard and low risk countries, competent authorities need to carry out checks on an annual basis but are only obligated to cover at least 5 % of companies as well as 5 % of the quantity of relevant products (regarding checks by authorities, see question 5). Only for products from low-risk countries or parts thereof, companies have the option of a simplified due diligence exercise (limited to the collection of information and documents). At the entry into force of the proposed regulation, all countries will be assigned a standard level of risk		2021	NA	To ensure a level playing field and a common understanding of deforestation free supply chains, in order to increase supply chain transparency and minimise the risk of deforestation and forest degradation associated with commodity imports in the EU	On 13.09.22, the European Parliament passed its counterproposal (including human rights and rights of indigenous people due diligence; expanding the commodity scope; moving deforestation deadline one year earlier to end of 2019) and is now ready to start negotiations on the final law with EU member states. The applicability of this legislation is Risk-based: Current negotiating position is that due diligence obligations will depend on the Commission's determination level of deforestation risk of the national or subnational jurisdiction that the product is sourced from. After the entry into force of the proposed regulation, the European Commission will assess risk of countries based on the mentioned assessment criteria, will decide on the countries' risk levels in due course and will publish the risk levels of countries in a publicly available list. Generally, the Commission can identify countries as having a low, standard or high risk of producing goods that are not compliant with the proposed regulation - thus triggering different levels of scrutiny. The proposed regulation provides for a variety of assessment criteria in this respect, such as (inter alia) the rate of deforestation and forest degradation, rate of expansion of agriculture land for relevant products or whether NDCs under the Paris Agreement cover emissions and removals from agriculture, forestry and land use. The objective of this benchmarking system is to incentivise countries to ensure stronger forest protection and governance and to facilitate trade. Products from high risk countries would be subject to enhanced scrutiny by competent authorities of Member States (regarding the role of competent authorities, see question 5 below). Where this applies, competent authorities need to ensure that the checks they carry out on an annual basis are covering at least 15% of companies (placing on or exporting from the EU market products from high risk countries) and 15% of the quantity of relevant products produced in high-risk countries or parts thereof. For standard and low risk countries, competent authorities need to carry out checks on an annual basis but are only obligated to cover at least 5 % of companies as well as 5 % of the quantity of relevant products (regarding checks by authorities, see question 5). Only for products from low-risk countries or parts thereof, companies have the option of a simplified due diligence exercise (limited to the collection of information and documents). At the entry into force of the proposed regulation, all countries will be assigned a standard level of risk		All sizes; one year delay for micro-businesses (businesses with total asset value of maximum EUR 350.000,00, net turnover of maximum EUR 700.000,00 and an average number of employees during the financial year of 10 or fewer, established by 31 December 2020)	Own operations and subsidiaries; all suppliers and subcontractors in the entire global supply chain.		Deforestation; Forest degradation	Any deforestation and forest degradation (cut-off date 31.12.2020) as well as legality	Rights of indigenous people; Fundamental rights	EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (including the right to life, protection of personal data, freedom to conduct a business, right to property, and environmental protection) are relevant in the context of deforestation. However, the regulation does not consider any broader adverse human rights impacts that may result from reigning back the development of agriculture or industries (for example, impacts on the labour market) nor does it propose any steps that companies should take to mitigate such impacts.		Yes	Down to plot-level: Companies would need to collect information and documents on (inter alia) the commodity/product, quantity, supplier, country of production and geo-location coordinates of all plots where the products were produced. EU operators will be required to identify the geolocation coordinates of the parcels of land where the commodities and products in their supply chains were produced, as well as the date or time range of production. The Proposal also includes important checks on the reliability of the supply chain information that EU operators receive from their suppliers. In particular, operators must consider the complexity of their supply chains, the difficulties in connecting commodities to the land where they were produced, and the risk that products of unknown origin or from deforestation areas have been mixed with the commodities in their supply chain, as part of their risk assessment (Art. 10(2)(f) and (g)). Any due diligence procedure should ensure that the risk of non-compliant relevant commodities or products being placed or exported from the EU market is negligible. To do so, operators and non SMEs traders shall gather all relevant information (as indicated in Article 9) – step one of due diligence process.	No		Yes	Conduct risk assessment. Criteria: (inter alia) the presence of forests in the country and area of production, prevalence of deforestation or forest degradation in the country/region/area of production, the complexity of the relevant supply chain, and, in particular, the difficulties of connecting products to the plot of land where they were produced, or the risk of mixing with products of unknown origin or production in deforested areas.	Yes	Operators shall have in place adequate and proportionate policies, controls and procedures to mitigate and manage effectively the risks of non-compliance of relevant commodities and products identified. These shall include: (a) model risk management practices, reporting, record-keeping, internal control and compliance management, including for operators that are not SMEs, the appointment of a compliance officer at management level; (b) an independent audit function to check the internal policies, controls and procedures referred to in point (a) for all operators that are not SMEs In cases where they identify a non-negligible risk (showing cause for concern) of non-compliance with the requirements of the proposed regulation, companies are required to adopt risk mitigation measures which are adequate to remove the risk or reduce it to a negligible level. Such risk mitigation measures can include requiring additional information, data or documents or undertaking independent surveys or audits. Among those are requirements to gather information on specific topics that is “supported by evidence”, an obligation to “verify and analyse” that information, and to assess the risk that the relevant commodities or products do not comply with the regulation’s requirements, taking “special account” of certain risk assessment criteria.	Yes	They shall identify and assess the risk of possible non-compliance of relevant commodities and products with the requirements of this Regulation. in cases where they identify a non-negligible risk (showing cause for concern) of non-compliance with the requirements of the proposed regulation, companies are required to adopt risk mitigation measures which are adequate to remove the risk or reduce it to a negligible level. Such risk mitigation measures can include requiring additional information, data or documents or undertaking independent surveys or audits. If companies cannot demonstrate the absence of risk or negligible risk, they must not place the relevant products on the EU market or export them.	No		Not explicitly mentioned		Yes	The companies should have an independent audit function to check the internal policies, controls and procedures for all operators that are not SMEs.	true	Public reporting on their due diligence systems; in cases where due diligence results in a company concluding that there is no risk or only a negligible risk of non-compliance with the requirements of the proposed regulation, the company will be required to submit a due diligence statement to the competent authority via an official EU information system. Risk assessments shall be documented, reviewed at least on an annual basis and made available to the competent authorities upon request. Member States shall report on the application of this Regulation on an annual basis; Commission services will make publicly available, on an annual basis, a Union-wide overview on the basis of the data submitted by the Member States				Member States will be required to designate one or more competent authorities responsible for carrying out the obligations imposed on them by the proposed regulation. The designated competent authorities would have the obligation to check corporate compliance and whether products are compliant with it. Checks on companies will include, inter alia, examinations of their due diligence systems and due diligence statements as well as documentation and records maintained by companies that demonstrate the compliance of products with the requirements of the proposed regulation. Checks can also include, where appropriate, any technical and scientific means adequate to determine whether the relevant product is deforestation-free (such as Earth observation data or field audits). Based on the risk level of countries, checks need to cover companies and quantities of products from at least 5 % to 15 % under enhanced scrutiny. As a further enforcement measure, Member States will be able to impose penalties for infringements of the proposed regulation, such as fines, confiscation of products, confiscation of revenues and temporary exclusion from public procurement processes.	Yes	The Regulation provides a list of penalties to be established in national legal systems for non-compliance. This list includes fines, the confiscation of the relevant commodities and products, as well as the confiscation of revenues, the suspension or prohibition of relevant economic activities, and the exclusion from public procurement processes for the businesses that infringe the Regulation. The proposed RDFP also requires that EU Member State legislation provide for a variable amount of the level of the fines depending on the annual revenues of the infringing businesses. The maximum amount of such fines shall be at least 4 % of the operators or trader’s annual turnover in the Member State or Member States concerned		Not suggested by Regulation, but depends on MS enforcement				Not mentioned		Partially	Article 28 of the proposal sets a basis to develop partnerships and cooperation mechanisms with producing countries, though the path to achieve this result is still unclear	Yes	One year delay for micro-businesses (businesses with total asset value of maximum EUR 350.000,00, net turnover of maximum EUR 700.000,00 and an average number of employees during the financial year of 10 or fewer, established by 31 December 2020)		Plot-level traceability (geo-locations), risk assessment, risk mitigation, verification	High	Stringent traceability and requirement to exclude risk of deforestation or reduce it to negligible levels may lead to supply chain restructuring and avoidance of high-risk supplying areas. Companies cannot rely solely on certification, meaning large internal resources for due diligence verification may be needed		https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-10284-2022-INIT/en/pdf	https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2022/06/28/council-agrees-on-new-rules-to-drive-down-deforestation-and-forest-degradation/	https://www.cliffordchance.com/content/dam/cliffordchance/briefings/2022/01/briefing-on-proposal-for-a-regulation-on-deforestation-free-products.pdf	https://www.cliffordchance.com/content/dam/cliffordchance/briefings/2022/01/briefing-on-proposal-for-a-regulation-on-deforestation-free-products-international-context.pdf		https://environment.ec.europa.eu/publications/proposal-regulation-deforestation-free-products_en	https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-10284-2022-INIT/en/pdf	https://www.natlawreview.com/article/eu-proposed-regulation-deforestation-free-products-impact-food-businesses
		Modern Slavery (Amendment) Bill	United Kingdom	Failed to pass	NA		Companies - Commercial organizations	Any commercial organization doing business in the UK	All		All			2021	NA	To prohibit the falsification of slavery and human trafficking statements; to establish minimum standards of transparency in supply chains in relation to modern slavery and human trafficking; to prohibit companies using supply chains which fail to demonstrate minimum standards of transparency; and for connected purposes.	According to the official website "The 2021-2022 session of Parliament has prorogued and this Bill will make no further progress." See above under Modern Slavery Act - there is a possibility that a new Modern Slavery Bill will be introduced by the government.		Annual turnover of £36 million	See Modern Slavery Act (MSA) above		No		Slavery; Human trafficking			Yes	Publish information on the country of origin of sourcing inputs and report the use of employment agents acting on behalf of an oversees government	Only disclosure	Only disclosure on slavery and human trafficking training available to its staff	Yes	Measures to mitigate risk and prevent serious injury	Only disclosure	Only disclosure on steps it has taken to assess and manage that risk	Yes	Arrange for credible inspections and verify country of origin information	No		No		Only disclosure	Only disclosure, on effectiveness in ensuring that slavery and human trafficking are not taking place in its business or supply chains, measured against such key performance indicators as it considers appropriate	true	A statement published in a prominent location on the commercial organisation’s website homepage and must clearly identify the contents of the link. If the commercial organisation does not have a website, it must provide a copy of the statement upon written request within 30 days after the request is received.				Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner would review and enforce compliance.	Yes	If commercial organisations continue to source from suppliers or sub-suppliers that fail to demonstrate minimum standards of transparency after having been issued with a formal warning by the Independent Anti-slavery Commissioner, they may be punished with a fine of 4 per cent of the relevant commercial organisation’s global turnover, subject to a cap of £20 million	true	A person (that is, a director, member of an LLP, or a partner) who is responsible for a slavery and human trafficking statement commits an offence if: i. Information in the statement is materially false or incomplete; and ii. The person either knows it is false or is reckless as to whether it is. The proposed offence under section 54ZA would be punishable with imprisonment and/or a fine of 4 per cent of the relevant commercial organisation’s global turnover, subject to a cap of £20 million.				Not mentioned		Not mentioned		Not mentioned			Country-of-origin traceability, transparency, verification/inspections	Medium	Strengthens requirements on UK businesses and introduces serious penalties for continuing to source from intransparent suppliers. May lead to supply chain restructuring.		https://bills.parliament.uk/publications/41860/documents/531	https://www.reedsmith.com/en/perspectives/2021/06/new-modern-slavery-amendment-bill-seeks-to-strengthen-the-uk	https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/2892
		Swiss Conflict Minerals and Child Labor Due Diligence Provisions	Switzerland	In force	2022; requirements are applicable as per fiscal year 2023		Companies; NGO - Legal enterprises	All forms of legal enterprises	minerals; metals containing tin; tantalum; tungsten; gold		Risk-based	Large companies are excluded from child labor due diligence obligations if they can show that the countries from which they supply goods and services are low-risk countries with regard to child labour. A low risk is presumed if a country is listed as ‘Basic’ in the UNICEF Children’s Rights in the Workplace Index. The remaining large companies are obliged to conduct due diligence only if there are reasonable grounds for suspecting child labour Companies are also exempt if they do not source 3TG from a conflict-affected or high-risk area. As used in the Ordinance, “conflict-affected and high-risk areas” are areas in a state of armed conflict or fragile post-conflict as well as areas witnessing weak or non-existent governance and security and in which widespread and systematic violations of international law, including human rights abuses, take place. This is the same meaning as under the EU Conflict Minerals Regulation and the OECD Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Supply Chains of Minerals from Conflict-Affected and High-Risk Areas. The Ordinance does not identify specific areas by name as conflict-affected and high-risk. Instead, the Federal Council’s guidance refers to the European Union’s 2018 recommendations for determining whether areas are conflict-affected and high-risk for purposes of the EU Conflict Minerals Regulation and the list of conflict-affected and high-risk areas periodically published by Rand International.			2022	To further responsible business practices by Swiss companies by implementing mandatory human rights due diligence requirements for conflict minerals and child labor.	The Ordinance and the relevant provisions of the Swiss Code of Obligations entered into force on January 1, 2022, but are subject to a one-year transition period.		All sizes: These requirements apply irrespective of the size of a company, the Swiss government has the authority to define exceptions with respect to the import of small volumes of potentially conflicted minerals, on the one hand, and small and medium sized entities as well as entities with limited risk of exposure to child labour in their supply chain, on the other hand. Large companies (assets > CHF 20 million; sales > CHF 40 million; > 250 full-time employees) withregistered office, central administration or principal place of business in Switzerland (incl. subsidiaries) that are sourcing from countries with risk of child labor, have a reasonable suspicion of child labor, and are not yet complying with ILO Minimum Age Convention, Worst Forms of Child Labour Convention and ILO-IOE Child Labour Guidance Tool for Business; or OECD Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Business Conduct; unless the products or services are conclusively made or provided with child labor - then all companies (no exemptions)	Own operations and subsidiaries; all suppliers and subcontractors in the entire global supply chain		No		Human rights; Child labor	Human rights related to conflict minerals		Yes	Establish a traceability system in their supply chains Minerals: indicate and document the name of the supplier, the country of origin and the volume and date of extraction of the minerals. If the minerals originate from a conflict area, additional information is required, such as the mine of origin, the locations where minerals are consolidated, traded or processed as well as all taxes or other payments made in relation to the minerals. A similar list of required information is required for metals. For products for which there are reasonable grounds to suspect that they were produced with child labour, the duty to establish a traceability system requires that companies describe the product and list the name and address of the supplier as well as of all production sites or service providers of all components of the product along the entire supply chain	No		Yes	Identify and evaluate risks based on their supply chain policy and tracing system	Yes	Adopt a management plan to reduce the identified risks to the extent possible; adoption of a supply chain policy. Among other elements, companies must communicate with the public and their suppliers about their conflict minerals and/or child labour supply chain policy and include it in contracts with suppliers.	Yes	Establish internal documentation of the commitment to comply with the supply chain policy whenever the company procures minerals and metals from conflict-affected and high-risk areas or processes products or services that are reasonably suspected to have been produced or provided using child labour.	Yes	As an early warning mechanism for risk identification, the enterprise must provide a reporting mechanism that allows all interested persons to express reasonable concerns regarding actual or potential adverse impacts relating to child labor or 3TG. The enterprise must document any complaints received.	Not explicitly mentioned		Yes	Based on their risk management plan, companies have to take measures to eliminate, prevent or minimize the risks identified in their supply chains in the areas of conflict minerals and child labor.	true	Companies will have to publish reports on their due diligence obligations, which will remain publicly accessible for at least 10 years.	true	The report on conflict minerals must be audited by independent auditing companies authorized by the government. Child labor reports do not have mandatory auditing requirements, but companies should consider providing for a voluntary audit. In particular, for a negligent act to be punishable, it is necessary that the offender, eg, a member of the board of directors, did not realise that he or she may have published a false report, but that he or she could have realised this if he or she had exercised due diligence. Through a voluntary audit, the governing bodies of a company can demonstrate that they acted diligently.		The question of enforcement of these due diligence obligations is quite lacunary in the law. Apart from an audit by independent auditing companies authorized by the government that will verify compliance with conflict minerals due diligence obligations, the only enforcement mechanism is a criminal sanction of up to CHF 100,000 for not reporting on the implementation of due diligence obligations. There is no further mention of how due diligence obligations should be enforced with respect to child labour. It is also unclear how the breach of these due diligence obligations may be considered as a fault and lead to a tort in civil liability proceedings. The lack of an enforcement mechanism is clearly a weakness of the newly introduced legislation in Switzerland.	No	While Swiss criminal law knows the concept of corporate criminal liability, a legal entity cannot be fined for violations of articles 325bis and 325ter CC, as the corporate criminal liability does not apply for contraventions punishable by fines.	true	Based on a referral rule in Swiss criminal law, which attributes criminal liability to the members of the board of directors and management if a special obligation that is incumbent on the legal entity is violated (article 29 CC), the persons who are responsible for compliance with the ESG due diligence and reporting rules are criminally liable for violations. Non-compliance includes the inclusion of false statements in any of the newly required reports, the generic ESG Report and the report on compliance with due diligence measures in the area of conflict minerals and child labour, or the failure to issue any of these reports, or the failure to keep records of, or publish, these reports. If any of these acts is committed intentionally, the fine is up to CHF 100'000, if committed negligently, the fine is up to CHF 50'000. A conviction may lead to an entry in the criminal record of the natural person concerned and, for regulated companies, there may also be reporting obligations to supervisory authorities and potential concerns with fit and proper requirements for board members and executives in Switzerland and abroad. Deficient ESG due diligence or reporting may trigger civil liability under existing concepts, namely the liability of board members and management under article 754 of the Swiss Code of Obligations.				Not mentioned		Not mentioned		Yes	An enterprise generally is not subject to the child labor due diligence and reporting requirements of the Ordinance if it is a small or medium-sized enterprise. An enterprise is an SME if it and its controlled entities are under two of the following thresholds for two consecutive fiscal years: Total assets of SFr 20 million (approximately $21.7 million); Sales of SFr 40 million (approximately $43.5 million); and An annual average of 250 full-time employees. Child labor: Companies are exempt if there is not a reasonable suspicion of child labor. There is a reasonable suspicion of child labor if there is specific information available that would lead a reasonable person to believe that a product or service involves child labor. If the enterprise concludes there is not a reasonable suspicion of child labor, it must document its finding. The finding is not required to be published or filed with a regulator. Minerals: A company is exempt if the 3TG it imports or processes does not exceed the volumes specified on an Annex to the Ordinance. The 3TG usage thresholds largely match those in the EU Conflict Minerals Regulation. Both: If none of the following exemptions are available, an enterprise will be exempt from due diligence and reporting if it complies with an internationally equivalent regulation or instrument. The regulations and instruments that currently qualify are listed on an Annex to the Ordinance (for brevity, these are referred to as “Specified Instruments” in this Alert): Child Labor: ILO Minimum Age Convention, Worst Forms of Child Labour Convention and ILO-IOE Child Labour Guidance Tool for Business; and OECD Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Business Conduct. Conflict Minerals: OECD Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Supply Chains of Minerals from Conflict-Affected and High-Risk Areas; or EU Conflict Minerals Regulation. To utilize this exception, the enterprise must prepare a report that identifies the Specified Instrument and comply with its requirements in their entirety.		Traceability system, risk assessment, risk mitigation	Medium	If in scope, traceability down to each production site would be needed; but many exemptions and lack of strong enforcement		https://www.fedlex.admin.ch/eli/oc/2021/846/de	https://insightplus.bakermckenzie.com/bm/investigations-compliance-ethics/switzerland-esg-reporting-and-due-diligence-requirements#cntAnchor1	https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/business-and-human-rights-journal/article/swiss-human-rights-due-diligence-legislation-between-law-and-politics/A05D9400EB89436F1D00EE24121D7E05	https://www.ropesgray.com/en/newsroom/alerts/2022/February/Swiss-Conflict-Minerals-and-Child-Labor-Due-Diligence-Legislation-Takes-Effect	https://www.mondaq.com/shareholders/1171630/new-esg-rules-in-switzerland-how-to-mitigate-the-risk-of-criminal-liability	https://www.pinsentmasons.com/out-law/news/swiss-usher-in-corporate-reporting-and-due-diligence-mandates
		Corporate Duty of Vigilance Law	France	In force	2017		Companies - Limited liability companies	Large limited liability companies (“sociétés anonymes”)	All		All				2017	To prevent severe human rights violations and violations of the health and safety of people or the environment, including those associated with subsidiaries, subcontractors and supply chain members.	First cases have been raised by NGOs (e.g. against BNP Paribas, Danone, TotalEnergies) and first response provided (on 28.02.22, case against TotalEnergies dismissed on procedural grounds)		> 5,000 employees in France (if company has HQ in France or is French subsidiary of company w/ HQ outside France), or >10'000 employees globally (only for companies with HQ in France, but includes direct and indirect global subsidiaries)	Parent company; companies it controls directly or indirectly; subcontractors and suppliers with whom they maintain a 'established business relationship' described under the French law. Business relationships are understood to include business partners, entities in the value chain, and any other non-state or state entity directly linked to a company's business operations, products or services		Environmental impact		Human rights; Fundamental freedoms	Serious violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms, identical to the full spectrum of human rights outlined in the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights		Yes	Yes, Implicitly. Knowledge of subcontractors and suppliers with whom they maintain a 'established business relationship' described under the French law	No		Yes	Risk map (which identifies, analyses, and prioritises risks relating to their subsidiaries, subcontractors, and suppliers).	Yes	Take appropriate measures to identify and prevent risks of serious infringements to human rights and fundamental freedoms, serious bodily injury, health risks or environmental damage, resulting directly and indirectly from a company’s activities and those of its business relations (as defined by the French Commercial Code).	Yes	The scope of the due diligence includes "whether [the activity] causes or contributes to an adverse impact, or its operations, products or services are directly linked to adverse impact through a business relationship”, and by the severity or salience of these actual and potential impacts	Yes	Alert mechanism (co-developed with union representatives)	Yes	Though remediation mechanism is focused on civil liability action and court proceedings; companies failing to comply with the Vigilance Obligations will have to remedy the damage that ‘the execution of these obligations could have prevented’	Yes	The vigilance plan must include mechanisms to assess measures that have been implemented as part of the company’s plan and their effectiveness.	true	Companies must summarize their actions in vigilance plans. These plans, as well as the reports on their implementation, will be public and included in the company’s annual report				No proactive enforcement from state authorities to date. However, 'Any person with standing' can bring a company in non-compliance to court, in a two-step enforcement process: (i) a formal notice to comply and then (ii) a request asking the competent court to order an injunction with a potential periodic penalty payment. Jurisdiction over the Law was conferred upon the Paris Civil Court on October 21, 2021. In practice, it is mostly NGOs and trade unions that have led the way initiating the first enforcement actions. Yet, the triggering of the mechanism is all the more challenging as these entities often have limited financial and operational capacity.	Yes	In addition to requiring to establish, publish and implement a vigilance plan, the judge can impose a fine up to 10 million euros. Interested parties may also engage the company’s liability through civil action and ask for compensation if the violation of the legal obligation has caused damages. In addition to the compensation, the judge can impose a fine of up to 30 million euros.			true			Not mentioned		Not mentioned		Not mentioned			Risk assessment, risk mitigation, extraterritorial liability, compensation for damages	High	Though enforcement is only via civil court action, so risk likely highest for companies most in the public eye and most likely to be targeted by campaigners		https://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/14/pdf/ta/ta0924.pdf	Evans, A. (2020). Overcoming the global despondency trap: strengthening corporate accountability in supply chains. Review of International Political Economy, 27(3), 658–685. https://doi.org/10.1080/09692290.2019.1679220	https://media.business-humanrights.org/media/documents/files/documents/French_Corporate_Duty_of_Vigilance_Law_FAQ.pdf	https://respect.international/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/ngo-translation-french-corporate-duty-of-vigilance-law.pdf	https://www.globalbusinessandhumanrights.com/2017/08/03/the-french-duty-of-vigilance-law-what-you-need-to-know/	https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/business-and-human-rights-journal/article/french-law-on-the-duty-of-vigilance-theoretical-and-practical-challenges-since-its-adoption/0398716B2E8530D9A9440EEB20DB7E07
		EU Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive	European Union	Proposed	NA		Companies		All sectors in Group 1 companies; High impact sectors (OECD guidance for Group 2 companies); non-EU operating in EU	All sectors in Group 1 companies (EU: >500 employees and >€150m turnover worldwide and non-EU operating in EU: >€150m turnover in the EU). High impact sectors as defined by the OECD guidance for Group 2 companies (EU: >250 employees on average and net worldwide turnover >40 million, non-EU operating in EU: >250 employees and >€40m turnover worldwide) with at least 50% of the revenue generated in high impact sectors (manufacture of textiles, leather, and related products including footware, and wholesale trade of textiles, clothing and footwear; agriculture, forestry, fisheries including acquaculture, the manufacture of food products and the wholesale trade of agricultural raw materials, live animals, wood, food and beverages; extraction of mineral resources)	All			2022	NA	To ensure that companies active in the EU internal market contribute to sustainable development and the sustainability transition of economies and societies through the identification, prevention and mitigation, cessation and minimization of potential and actual adverse human rights and environmental impacts connected with companies’ own operations, subsidiaries and value chains.	Proposed by the European Commission. The directive does not have legal force yet and is to be prensented to the European Parliament and the Council for approval. The directive does not contain binding obligations on the company. The components listed here are the European Commission's proposition. In the meantime, both the European Council (in Dec 2022) as well as the Parliament (in June 2023) have adopted their own negotiating position, and the three institutions will now conduct the trilogue to determine the Directive's final shape. The parties are hoping to be able to reach a final agreement on the CSDDD by the end of 2023 (although the timeline could possibly slip until early 2024). Major points of debate are the scope of inclusion with regard to the covered entities (in terms of minimum size requirements), the inclusion of financial services, the scope of the obligations, the duty of directors (to take sustainability matters into account), the inclusion of civil liability, and when the rules will start to apply. A useful table with the key differences of the negotiation positions is available under the link "https://www.vbb.com/media/Insights_Articles/6-6-23.pdf"		Very large EU companies (>500 employees and >€150m turnover worldwide); very large non-EU companies operating in the EU (>€150m turnover in the EU); Large EU companies in high-risk sectors: agriculture, garment and minerals (>250 employees and >€40m turnover worldwide); Large non-EU companies in high-risk sectors operating in the EU: agriculture, garment and minerals (>€40m turnover in the EU)	Own operations and subsidiaries; ‘Established business relationships’ (direct and indirect relationships that are or are expected to be lasting, not negligible and not merely ancillary) in all tiers of the global value chain, upstream and downstream; SME clients are excluded from financial institutions’ due diligence		Adverse environmental impact	“Adverse environmental impact”, meaning an adverse impact on the environment resulting from the violation of a prohibition or obligation pursuant to one of twelve specified international environmental conventions. Violation of the prohibition of causing any measurable environmental degradation, such as harmful soil change, water or air pollution, harmful emissions or excessive water consumption or other impact on natural resources, that (a)impairs the natural bases for the preservation and production of food or (b)denies a person access to safe and clean drinking water or (c)makes it difficult for a person to access sanitary facilities or destroys them or (d)harms the health, safety, the normal use of property or land or the normal conduct of economic activity of a person or (e)affects ecological integrity, such as deforestation, in accordance with Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 5 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Article 12 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights; Group 1 companies would be required to adopt a plan to ensure their business model and strategy are compatible with the transition to a sustainable economy and with limiting global warming to 1.5°C in line with the Paris Agreement. The climate change plan would be required to identify, on the basis of information reasonably available to the company, the extent to which climate change is a risk for, or an impact of, a company’s operations. If climate change is or should have been identified as a principal risk for, or a principal impact of, a company’s operations, the company would be required to include emission reduction objectives in its plan. Group 1 companies would be required to take into account the fulfillment of the climate change‐related obligations discussed above when setting a director’s variable compensation, if variable compensation is linked to the director’s contribution to the company’s business strategy, long‐term interests and sustainability.	Human rights	“Adverse human rights impact”, meaning an adverse impact on a protected person resulting from a violation of one of the rights or prohibitions included in listed international human rights instruments. (https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52022PC0071)- includes a long list of prohibitions within human rights		Yes	Yes, implicitly	No		Yes	Take appropriate measures to identify potential adverse human rights impacts and adverse environmental impacts arising from their own operations or those of their subsidiaries and, where related to their value chains, from their established business relationships.	Yes	Take appropriate measures to prevent or, if prevention is not possible or immediately possible, adequately mitigate potential adverse human rights and environmental impacts that have been, or should have been, identified through the measures required to identify these impacts. At the minimum, this includes creating a due diligence policy that includes: i) description of approach to due diligence ii) Code of conduct for company's employees and subsidiaries iii) Description of processes to implement due diligence and verify compliance. The policy needs to be updated annually. More specifically, companies would be required to take the following actions, where relevant: - Where necessary due to the nature or complexity of the measures required for prevention, develop and implement a prevention action plan, with reasonable and clearly defined timelines for action and qualitative and quantitative indicators for measuring improvement. The prevention action plan would be required to be developed in consultation with affected stakeholders. - Seek contractual assurances from the business partner with whom the company has a direct business relationship that the partner will ensure compliance with the company’s code of conduct and, as necessary, prevention action plan, including by seeking corresponding contractual assurances from its partners to the extent their activities are part of the company’s value chain (referred to in the Directive as “contractual cascading”). If contractual assurances are obtained, measures to verify compliance would be required to be taken. - Make necessary investments, such as into management or production processes and infrastructures, to comply with the requirement to prevent or mitigate potential human rights and environmental impacts - Provide targeted and proportionate support for an SME with which the company has an established business relationship, where compliance with the code of conduct or prevention action plan would jeopardize the viability of the SME. - Collaborate with other entities, including where relevant to increase the company’s ability to bring the adverse impact to an end, in particular, where no other action is suitable or effective.	Yes	Take appropriate measures to identify actual adverse human rights impacts and adverse environmental impacts arising from their own operations or those of their subsidiaries and, where related to their value chains, from their established business relationships. To the extent relevant, companies would be required to carry out consultations with potentially affected groups, including workers and other relevant stakeholders, to gather information on actual or potential adverse impacts. Adverse impacts also may be identified through the company’s complaints mechanism Contractual assurances from a business partner or indirect partner in connection with addressing adverse impacts would be required to be accompanied by appropriate measures to verify compliance. The company would be permitted to refer to suitable industry initiatives or independent third‐party verification. If a contractual assurance is obtained from or a contract is entered into with an SME, the terms used would be required to be fair, reasonable and non‐discriminatory. The company would be required to bear the cost of the independent third‐party verification when verifying SME compliance. An “industry initiative” would be defined as a combination of voluntary value chain due diligence procedures, tools and mechanisms, including independent third‐party verifications, developed and overseen by governments, industry associations or groupings of interested organizations. Third‐party verification could be provided by an auditor who is independent from the company, free from conflicts of interest, has experience and competence in environmental and human rights matters and is accountable for the quality and reliability of the audit.	Yes	Complaints mechanism available for submission of legitimate concerns regarding actual or potential adverse human rights and environmental impacts in their own operations, at their subsidiaries or in their value chains. Companies would be required to establish a procedure for addressing complaints, including complaints the company considers to be unfounded. The company would be required to inform the relevant workers and trade unions of the complaints procedures. The company complaint mechanism would be required to enable the following to submit concerns:  Persons affected or who have reasonable grounds to believe they might be affected by an adverse impact;  Trade unions and other workers’ representatives representing individuals working in the value chain; and  Civil society organizations active in the areas related to the value chain. Complainants would be entitled to request appropriate follow‐up on the complaint from the company. In addition, they would be entitled to meet with the company’s representatives at an appropriate level to discuss potential or actual severe adverse impacts that are the subject matter of the complaint. In addition, persons would be able to submit substantiated concerns to a supervisory authority if the person has reason to believe, on the basis of objective circumstances, that a company is failing to comply with national legislation adopted pursuant to the Directive.	Yes	Take appropriate measures to bring to an end actual adverse impacts that have been, or should have been, identified pursuant to the due diligence measures required to be taken. If the adverse impact cannot be brought to an end, the company would be required to minimize the extent of the impact. Companies specifically would be required to take the following actions, where relevant: Neutralize the adverse impact or minimize its extent, including by the payment of damages to the affected persons and financial compensation to the affected communities. This action would be required to be proportionate to the significance and scale of the adverse impact and the contribution of the company’s conduct to the adverse impact; Where necessary due to the fact that the adverse impact cannot immediately be brought to an end, develop and implement a corrective action plan with reasonable and clearly defined timelines for action and qualitative and quantitative indicators for measuring improvement. Where relevant, the corrective action plan would be required to be developed in consultation with stakeholders; Seek contractual assurances from a direct partner with whom the company has an established business relationship that the partner will ensure compliance with the company’s code of conduct and, as necessary, corrective action plan, including by seeking corresponding contractual assurances from its partners to the extent they are part of the value chain (i.e., contractual cascading); Make necessary investments, such as into management or production processes and infrastructures, to comply with the foregoing three items; Provide targeted and proportionate support for an SME with which the company has an established business relationship, where compliance with the code of conduct or the corrective action plan would jeopardize the viability of the SME; Collaborate with other entities, including, where relevant, to increase the company’s ability to bring the adverse impact to an end, in particular where no other action would be suitable or effective. If these measures cannot prevent or adequately mitigate potential adverse impacts, the company would expressly be permitted to seek to conclude a contract with a partner with whom it has an indirect relationship, with a view to achieving compliance with the company’s code of conduct or prevention action plan. Further, the company would be required to refrain from entering into new or extending existing relations with the partner in connection to or in the value chain of which the impact has arisen. In addition, where the law governing the relationship entitles the company to do so, it would be required to take the following actions: Temporarily suspend commercial relations with the partner in question, while pursuing prevention and minimization efforts, if there is a reasonable expectation that these efforts will succeed in the short term; Terminate the business relationship with respect to the activities concerned if the potential adverse impact is severe. Regulated financial undertakings that provide credit, loan or other financial services would not be required to terminate the credit, loan or other financial service contract if this would reasonably be expected to cause substantial prejudice to the counterparty. Under the Directive, Member States would be required to provide for the availability of an option to terminate the business relationship in contracts governed by their laws. Companies should also provide the possibility for persons and organisations to submit complaints directly to them in case of legitimate concerns regarding actual or potential human rights and environmental adverse impacts. Companies should establish a procedure for dealing with those complaints and inform workers, trade unions and other workers’ representatives, where relevant, about such processes. Recourse to the complaints and remediation mechanism should not prevent the complainant from having recourse to judicial remedies.	Yes	Carry out periodic assessments to monitor the effectiveness of the identification, prevention, mitigation, cessation and minimization of human rights and environmental adverse impacts. The assessment would be required to take into account the company’s own operations and measures, those of its subsidiaries and those of established business relationships related to the company’s value chains. The assessment would be required to be based, where appropriate, on qualitative and quantitative indicators. The assessment would be required to be carried out at least every 12 months, or earlier if there are reasonable grounds to believe that significant new risks of the occurrence of the adverse impacts may arise. The due diligence policy would be required to be updated to take into account the outcome of the assessment.	true	Most subject companies would be required to annually report on the matters covered by the Directive. Statements would be published on the company’s website and be due by April 30 each year for the prior calendar year and in a language customary in the sphere of international business. Companies would not have to report under the Directive if they are required to report under the EU Non‐Financial Reporting Directive (or the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive, which will supersede the NFRD). The annual report would be required to specify information on the description of due diligence, potential and actual adverse impacts and related action taken.				National supervisory authorities may initiate investigations at their own initiative or following substantiated concerns by third parties. National supervisory authorities may order the cessation of infringements abstention from repetition, remedial action; impose fines (incl. exclusion from public support); and adopt interim measures. If a supervisory authority identifies a failure by a company to comply with national requirements adopted pursuant to the Directive, the company would be required to be given an appropriate period of time to take remedial action, if possible. However, remedial action would not preclude a supervisory authority from imposing administrative sanctions or civil liability if there are damages.	Yes	The Directive does not specify particular sanctions. Instead, it provides a framework for determining sanctions. Under the Directive, Member States would be required to establish rules on sanctions in the event of a violation of national provisions adopted pursuant to the Directive. Sanctions would be required to be effective, proportionate and dissuasive. In deciding whether to impose sanctions and, if so, in determining their nature and appropriate level, due consideration would be required to be given to the company’s efforts to comply with any remedial action required by a supervisory authority, any investments made and any targeted support provided to address potential or actual adverse impacts, as well as collaboration with other entities to address adverse impacts in the company’s value chain. If pecuniary sanctions are imposed, they would be required to be based on the company’s turnover.		Not suggested by Regulation, but depends on MS enforcement	true			Yes	Companies should provide targeted and proportionate support for an SME with which the company has an established business relationship, where compliance with the code of conduct or prevention action plan would jeopardize the viability of the SME	Not mentioned		Yes	SME clients are excluded from financial institutions’ due diligence		Risk assessment, risk mitigation, verification, remediation	High	Quite detailed expectations; implementation will depend on Member States		https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52022PC0071	https://corporatejustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Corporate-due-diligence-laws-and-legislative-proposals-in-Europe-March-2022.pdf	https://www.aim-progress.com/storage/resources/Ropes%20&%20Gray_AIM-Porgress_Corporate%20Social%20Responsibility%20Legislation%20Summary%20(February%202022).pdf		https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2022/03/15/eu-publishes-draft-corporate-sustainability-due-diligence-directive/
		Proposal on Duty of Vigilance	Belgium	Stalled	NA		Companies	All companies (higher obligations for large companies and enterprises operating in a high‐risk sector or region)	High‐risk sectors	"The commentary to the draft Act indicates that high‐risk sectors are those that may fuel, directly or indirectly, armed conflict, human rights violations or support corruption and money laundering, such as the trade in minerals and metals. "	Somewhat risk based	The commentary indicates that high‐risk regions are those characterized by political instability or repression, weak institutions, insecurity, the collapse of civilian infrastructure, widespread violence or systematic violations of human rights and violations of national and international law.		2021	NA	To require companies to monitor the corporate social responsibility of their value chains, and to provide additional legal claims for adverse impacts.	Proposed by political parties in Parliament. The draft Act was approved by the Belgian Chamber of Representatives on April 22, 2021. The Act is now being considered by special commissions of the Belgian Parliament before being presented to the Parliament. On September 29, 2021, the Belgian Council of State, Belgium’s administrative supreme court and an advisory institution, published an opinion on the draft Act, criticizing it for its vagueness, not imposing a duty of vigilance on small and medium‐sized enterprises, and certain difficulties of enforcement. Nevertheless, since the introduction of the EU-level due diligence directive proposition in February 2022, national actors have put a brake on the national legislative process, saying that they favor an EU-wide solution.		“Large enterprises” w/ more obligations: >= 250 employees; AND annual turnover > €50 million OR annual balance sheet total > €43 million	Own operations and subsidiaries; All business relationships in the entire global value chain, upstream and downstream		Environmental rights		Human rights; Conditions of employment	“Human rights” would be those rights encompassed by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. “Labor rights” would be the rights set out in the Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work of the International Labour Organization (which are further enumerated in the proposed Act to include those relating to freedom of association and collective bargaining, slavery and forced labor, child labor and non‐discrimination).		Only disclosure	Only disclosure on the description of the value chain in vigilance plan	No		Yes	Risk mapping for identifying, analyzing and prioritizing risks	Yes	Measures to mitigate risk and prevent serious injury	Yes	Procedures for regularly assessing identified risks at subsidiaries and entities in the value chain	Yes	Grievance mechanism that provides for whistleblower protection; an effective complaint and redress mechanism	Yes	Remediation mechanism via civil liability	Yes	Mechanisms for monitoring the measures taken and evaluating their effectiveness	true	Vigilance plan. Subject enterprises that are required to prepare a vigilance plan would be required to make the vigilance plan public and report on its effectiveness at least annually. Reporting would be on the subject enterprise’s website.				The King would determine the governmental body responsible for enforcing the Act.	Yes	If there is a breach of the duty of vigilance, the subject enterprise could be ordered to comply with the Act or subject to sanctions, which could result in fines of up to €1,600,000. It also could be excluded from participating in public contracts.	true	Sanctions also include the possibility of prison sentences between 1 month and 1 year for members of the board of directors in cases of violations of companies' duties of vigilance and their obligations set out in the due diligence plan.	true			Not mentioned		Not mentioned		Yes	For small and medium enterprises that are not active in high‐risk sectors or regions, the King may establish reporting requirements.		Risk assessment, risk mitigation, extraterritorial liability, compensation for damages	High	Includes fines and prison sentences for board members for non-compliance, as well as extraterritorial liability with presumption of liability (burden of proof to show non-liability)		https://www.dekamer.be/FLWB/PDF/55/1903/55K1903001.pdf	http://www.fratinivergano.eu/static/upload/1/1/21.10_.22_TP_Issue_19-2021_(for_circulation)_(corrected)_.pdf	https://www.allenovery.com/en-gb/global/news-and-insights/publications/progress-towards-adoption-of-the-belgian-corporate-vigilance-and-accountability-act	https://www.allenovery.com/en-gb/global/news-and-insights/publications/focus-falls-on-corporate-vigilance-and-accountability-in-belgium
		UK Environment Act	United Kingdom	Adopted	NA		Companies; NGO - Regulated person	"Any “regulated person,” which is a person (other than an individual) who: carries on commercial activities in the United Kingdom; and meets an annual turnover threshold to be determined by the Secretary of State; or is a subsidiary of another enterprise that meets such conditions. “Commercial activities” include (1) producing, manufacturing and processing, (2) distributing, selling or supplying or (3) purchasing for a purpose within either of the foregoing (other than purchasing as a consumer)."	Forest risk commodity	A "forest risk commodity” is a commodity to be specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State. The proposal considers seven commodities for initial inclusion: cattle (beef and leather), cocoa, coffee, maize, palm oil, rubber and soy, though this list may be extended in the future. Also applies to derived products from forest risk commodities.	All				2021	To protect forests	Secondary legislation (Schedule 17 on deforestation-risk commodity due diligence) still needs to be finalized based on consultation that ended in March 2022. Second consultation (in 2022) will result in secondary legislation detailing due diligence and reporting obligations, as well as enforcement, civil sanctions, and criminal offences for breach. Feb 2023 - In the recently published Environment Plan 2023, the government stated that it will be introducing the illegal deforestation due diligence provisions through secondary legislation at the "earliest opportunity".		The consultation is focusing on larger businesses with greater influence on forest risk commodity supply chains in order to have the greatest impact on addressing illegal deforestation while minimizing the regulatory burden on smaller businesses. To align with these goals, Defra has asked for feedback on three turnover thresholds ‐ £50, £100 and £200 million. In the consultation, Defra also seeks input on two metrics to regulate the U.K. operations of businesses that are based outside of the United Kingdom: (1) turnover related to U.K. activity; and (2) global turnover. Note: coffee is currently listed as commodity in scope during consultation, but there is no final decision yet	Own operations and subsidiaries;		Illegal deforestation	Illegal deforestation (according to relevant local laws). A “forest” is an area of lands of more than 0.5 hectares with tree canopy cover of at least 10%, excluding trees planted for the purpose of producing timber or other commodities. Land that is wholly or partially submerged in water, whether temporarily or permanently, is included in the measurement.	No			Yes	Yes, implicitly	No		Yes	System for identifying and obtaining information about the forest risk commodity and assessing the risk that relevant local laws were not complied with	Yes	System for eliminating risk or reducing risk to as low as reasonably practicable.	Yes	Yes, implicitly, to prevent illegal imports: It is made illegal to use designated key forest risk commodities if they have not been produced in line with relevant local laws	No		Not explicitly mentioned		No		true	Annual report on the actions taken to establish and implement a due diligence system, submitted to the Secretary of State or another designated U.K. authority. The relevant authority must make the reports public in the way and to the extent specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State.				The Secretary of State may make provisions about the monitoring and enforcement of requirements imposed on regulated persons through secondary regulations. The consultation notes that enforcement authorities should have three main functions: (1) monitoring compliance; (2) investigating compliance; and (3) imposing sanctions when a breach has been identified. Among other things, a monitoring and enforcement regime may include (1) provisions conferring on an enforcement authority powers of entry, inspection, examination, search and seizure subject to the authority of a warrant, (2) civil sanctions for failing to comply with the Act or obstructing or failing to assist an enforcement authority, and (3) criminal offenses punishable with a fine for failure to comply with any civil sanctions or obstructing or failing to assist an enforcement authority.	Yes	In the consultation, Defra seeks feedback on a proposed maximum penalty of £250,000. A regulated person who fails to comply with a prohibition on using forest risk commodities may not be subject to a civil sanction for a failure to comply if an enforcement authority is satisfied that the regulated person took all reasonable steps to implement a due diligence system in relation to the commodity used by the person.						Not mentioned		Not mentioned		Partially	A regulated person is exempt from providing an annual due diligence report if two conditions are met:  Before the start of the period, the person gives a notice to the relevant enforcement authority containing a declaration that the person is satisfied on reasonable grounds that the amount of a forest‐risk commodity used in their U.K. commercial activities during the period will not exceed the threshold prescribed in secondary regulations (by reference to weight or volume); and  The amount of the commodity used in the person’s U.K. commercial activities during the period does not exceed the prescribed threshold. The consultation asks for input on four specific thresholds for each of the enumerated priority commodities – one, 10, 100 and 1,000 tons. The consultation also asks whether the U.K. government should set a single exemption threshold for each regulated forest risk commodity, combining raw commodity use with derived commodity use. In addition, it asks whether businesses should be able to use conversion factors to estimate the volumes of commodities used in the supply chain to understand whether they can be exempt from due diligence and reporting requirements.		Identification of risk of illegal deforestation, risk mitigation	High	Places a lot of burden on companies to fully know supply chains down to the production site and investigate illegal deforestation risk in their supply chains at the risk of behaving illegally if using such commodities. May lead to avoidance of high-risk supplying areas.		https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2021/30	https://www.aim-progress.com/storage/resources/Ropes%20&%20Gray_AIM-Porgress_Corporate%20Social%20Responsibility%20Legislation%20Summary%20(February%202022).pdf	https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-sets-out-plans-to-clean-up-the-uks-supply-chains-to-help-protect-forests
		Motion for a Resolution on a Supply Chain Act	Austria	Failed to pass; may be reintroduced	NA		Companies	Large companies - suggestion to use definition of small corporation	All		All			2021	NA	To ensure that companies supplying European firms comply with human rights regulations and environmental standards	Proposed by political parties in Parliament. The motion was tabled/postponed on April 8 2021 and there have been no updates on this motion since 2021, though the sponsor said she would bring it up again. Currently, the debate in Austria is focused on the EU-level CSDDD; Austria was one of the few countries that abstained from voting on the Council resolution and received much criticism domestically for this choice.		Turnover limits are still to be decided; suggestion to use definition of small corporations: a balance sheet total >= 5 million euros, annual turnover >= 10 million euros; or >= 50 employees on average (2 out of 3 criteria need to apply)	Own operations and subsidiaries; all suppliers and subcontractors in the entire global supply chain		Environmental rights	All internationally recognised environmental and climate standards.	Human rights; Conditions of employment			Yes	Yes, implicitly	No		Yes	Conduct risk analysis	Yes	Implement follow-up measures (preventation and mitigation). Local farmers and independent interest groups, or human rights and environmental protection organisations, must be involved in the process so that they can contribute their perspectives	Yes	Due diligence verification obligations - carry out regular checks along their supply chains to determine where there might be risks with regard to human, labour and environmental rights	Yes	Early warning system should be set up, so workers and other affected individuals and organisations can anonymously report damage to the environment, climate and people directly. Any reports received must be included by the company in its risk analysis, follow-up measures and effectiveness reviews and they must be published in the annual report	Yes	Remediation mechanism via civil liability	Yes	Carry out effectiveness reviews on the measures taken	true	Publish annual reports and submit them to the competent authority				State authority with a civil society advisory board. State authority may impose proportionate, effective and dissuasive sanctions including fines, exclusion from public procurement procedures and prohibition from placing goods on the market or offering services	Yes	State authority may impose proportionate, effective and dissuasive sanctions for violations of the due diligence verification obligation, irrespective of violations of the due diligence obligation itself, including fines, exclusion from public procurement procedures and prohibition from placing goods on the market or offering services			true			Not mentioned		Not mentioned		Not mentioned			Risk assessment, risk mitigation, verification	High	Includes due diligence verification requirements, which may require regular audits across the entire supply chain		https://www.parlament.gv.at/PAKT/VHG/XXVII/A/A_01454/fnameorig_935996.html	https://corporatejustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Corporate-due-diligence-laws-and-legislative-proposals-in-Europe-March-2022.pdf	https://www.lansky.at/en/newsroom-en/news-media/info-magazine-lgp-news-022021/supply-chain-legislation-is-on-the-way-in-austria/#
	Disclosure-only legislation
		California Climate Corporate Accountability Act (SB 260)	USA	Failed to pass House; may be reintroduced in 2023	2025		Companies - (US‐based)	United States‐based partnerships, corporations, limited liability companies, and other business entities	All		All			2022	NA	To reduce greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions	California jurisdiction, especifically. Failed to pass the house on September 1 2022 House Assembly. May be reintroduced in 2023 (bill's proponent Wiener said he was “very likely” to reintroduce SB 260 next year), anticipated to be enforced in 2025.		Annual revenues in excess of $1 billion	Yes - scope 3 emissions included		Carbon emissions		No			Only disclosure	Only disclosure as required for scope 3 emissions accounting	No		Yes	Reporting of scope 1, 2, and 3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions: “Scope 1 emissions” would mean all direct GHG emissions that stem from sources that a Reporting Entity owns or directly controls, regardless of location, including, but not limited to, fuel combustion activities. “Scope 2 emissions” would mean indirect GHG emissions from electricity, purchased and used by a Reporting Entity, regardless of location. “Scope 3 emissions” would mean indirect GHG emissions, other than scope 2 emissions, from activities of a Reporting Entity that stem from sources that the Reporting Entity does not own or directly control and may include, but would not be limited to, emissions associated with the reporting entity’s supply chain, business travel, employee commutes, procurement, waste, and water usage, regardless of location.	No		No		No		No		No		true	Annually, publicly disclose the entities' scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions calculations in the prior calender year, in a manner that is easily understandable and accessible to residents of the state |The Secretary of State would be required to create a publicly accessible digital platform to house the disclosures submitted by the Reporting Entities.	true	Mandatory audits: Companies subject to SB 260 will be required to use a CARB-approved third party auditor to review and verify their carbon emissions inventory. The Reporting Entity’s disclosure would be required to be independently verified by a third‐party auditor, approved by the State Board, with expertise in GHG emissions accounting. A copy of the complete, audited GHG emissions inventory, including the name of the third‐party auditor, would be required to be provided in connection with the Reporting Entity’s public disclosure.		This bill would authorize the Attorney General to bring a civil action against a reporting entity if it is in violation of the requirements	Yes	There is an imposition of civil penalties for violations of its requirements, which would be able to be assessed and recovered in a civil action brought by the Attorney General in the name of the people of the State of California.						Not mentioned		Not mentioned		Not mentioned			Complete carbon emissions inventory (scopes 1, 2, and 3), third-party assurance	Medium	Needs to calculate and report on scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions, and provide third-party assurance of provided information, but not undertake new actions		https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220SB260	https://www.aim-progress.com/storage/resources/Ropes%20&%20Gray_AIM-Porgress_Corporate%20Social%20Responsibility%20Legislation%20Summary%20(February%202022).pdf	https://environmentallawmonitor.com/climate-change/key-corporate-climate-accountability-bill-fails-to-pass-in-california/
		Australian Commonwealth Modern Slavery Act	Australia	In force	2019		Companies; NGO charitable institutions; universities		All		All				2018	To reduce modern slavery through enhanced disclosure.	The Act requires that it be reviewed three years after its commencement. A 12-month review began on March 31, 2022, and based on this recommendations were put forward. The recommendations proposed are added at the end of every relevant field in this document at the end titled "Recommendations update".		Annual consolidated worldwide revenue of more than A$100 million. Recommendations update: Recommendation 4 proposes cutting the threshold in half to A$50 million.	Disclosures about supply chains of good and services in the Australian market		No		Slavery; Servitude; Forced labor; Deceptive recruiting; Debt bondage; Forced marriage; Human trafficking; Child labor	Modern slavery (slavery, servitude, forced labour, deceptive recruiting, debt bondage and forced marriage, human trafficking and child labour)		Only disclosure	Only disclosure on entity’s structure, operations and supply chains	Only disclosure	Only disclosure, about training provided to employees about modern slavery risks	Yes	Potential modern slavery risks in the entity’s operations and supply chains	Only disclosure	Only disclosure on actions the entity has taken to assess and address those risks, and how the entity assesses the effectiveness of those actions.	Only disclosure	Only disclosure on due diligence processes	No		Only disclosure	Only disclosure on remediation processes	Only disclosure	Only disclosure on how the entity assesses the effectiveness of those actions	true	Reporting entities must submit statements to the ABF for publication in an online central register and the statement must be approved by the principal governing body of the subject entity and signed by a responsible member for the entity				If the Minister believes an entity failed to comply with the Act, the Minister may ask the entity to provide an explanation for its failure to comply. The Minister also may request the entity undertake remedial action. If the entity fails to comply with the Minister’s request, the Minister may publish information about its failure to comply.	No							Not mentioned		Not mentioned		Not mentioned			Risk assessment, policy effectiveness assessment, transparency	Low	Needs to assess modern slavery risk and report on actions taken to address it as well as their effectiveness, but not take new actions		https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2018A00153	https://www.aim-progress.com/storage/resources/Ropes%20&%20Gray_AIM-Porgress_Corporate%20Social%20Responsibility%20Legislation%20Summary%20(February%202022).pdf	https://lens.monash.edu/2018/12/06/1366783/australias-modern-slavery-act-an-explainer
		Modern Slavery Act (MSA)	United Kingdom	In force	2015		Companies	Commercial organizations in the UK: A commercial organisation is a corporation or partnership that carries on a business (including a trade or profession) or part of a business in the United Kingdom, regardless of where it is was incorporated.	All		All				2015	To reduce modern slavery through enhanced disclosure.	After review and consultation, the government plans to introduce a centralised registry for the publication of modern slavery statements. In addition, on June 15, 2021, a Modern Slavery (Amendment) Bill (the “Bill”) was tabled in the House of Lords to strengthen the requirements on companies and enforcement of this Act. It is summarized below in the Disclosure+Diligence+Remediation legislation section. The Amendment Bill goes further than the amendments which the UK Government has previously committed to and, as a Private Members’ Bill, it does not have Government support. It therefore remains to be seen how far the proposals will go and whether they eventually become law. After review and consultation, the government plans to introduce a centralised registry for the publication of modern slavery statements. The Queen’s Speech 2022 proposed amendments to the MSA 2015 via a Modern Slavery Bill, which may proceed through Parliament in 2023 and will potentially mandate the contents of modern slavery and human trafficking statements, require them to be published on a public registry, and also introduce civil penalties for non-compliance. The proposed Bill has not yet been published.		Annual turnover of at least £36 million. Notes on turnover calculation: -The turnover calculation includes the turnover of the subject commercial organisation and its subsidiary undertakings, including those subsidiary undertakings carrying on business outside of the United Kingdom. -In determining the total turnover of a business operating a franchise model, only the turnover of the franchiser and not that of any franchisees must be included.	Disclosures about supply chain relationships are encouraged		No		Slavery; Human trafficking			Only disclosure	Only disclosure on structure of the commercial organisation, its business model and its supply chain relationships	Only disclosure	Only disclosure on slavery and human trafficking training available to its staff	Yes	The parts of its business and supply chains where there is a risk of slavery and human trafficking taking place	Only disclosure	Only disclosure on steps it has taken to assess and manage that risk	Only disclosure	Only disclosure on due diligence and auditing processes in relation to slavery and human trafficking in its business and supply chains	No		No		Only disclosure	Only disclosure on effectiveness in ensuring that slavery and human trafficking are not taking place in its business or supply chains, measured against such key performance indicators as it considers appropriate	true	A statement published in a prominent location on the commercial organisation’s website homepage and must clearly identify the contents of the link. If the commercial organisation does not have a website, it must provide a copy of the statement upon written request within 30 days after the request is received.				The Secretary of State may enforce a duty to prepare a modern slavery and human trafficking statement in civil proceedings by way of an injunction, and a company failing to comply with an injunction may then be liable to an unlimited fine if held in contempt of court	Yes	A company failing to comply with an injunction may be liable to an unlimited fine if held in contempt of court		But see Modern Slavery (Amendment) Bill below				Not mentioned		Not mentioned		Yes	Having a subsidiary that is subject to the MSA does not subject entities that are above that subsidiary in the corporate chain, or sister companies under common control, to the MSA. However, depending on their business activities in the UK, multiple entities in the consolidated group, even those not primarily engaged in carrying on a business in the United Kingdom, may be subject to the MSA.		Transparency	Low	Only needs to disclose current action, not start new ones		https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/30/pdfs/ukpga_20150030_en.pdf	https://www.aim-progress.com/storage/resources/Ropes%20&%20Gray_AIM-Porgress_Corporate%20Social%20Responsibility%20Legislation%20Summary%20(February%202022).pdf	https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/2892	https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/30/pdfs/ukpga_20150030_en.pdf	https://www.gov.uk/guidance/publish-an-annual-modern-slavery-statement
		Proposed Canadian Fighting Against Forced Labour and Child Labour in Supply Chains Act	Canada	Adopted	2024 (first report to be filed on or before May 31, 2024)		Companies; Gov - Corporation, trust, partnership; Other unincorporated organization (listed or unlisted); government institutions	Corporation, trust, partnership; Other unincorporated organization (listed or unlisted); including government institutions	All		All			2021	2023	To combat forced and child labor through the imposition of reporting obligations on entities producing good in or importing goods into Canada. Businesses that meet certain thresholds will be required to file detailed public reports on measures they have taken to identify, address and prevent forced labour, prison labour and child labour in their supply chains. In addition, the Bill amends the prohibition of imports of goods produced with forced labor in the Canadian Customs Tariff to include the term “child labour” and a new definition of “forced labour.” These definitions incorporate and go beyond the definitions of those terms found in the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 and Worst Forms of Child Labour Convention, 1999. Among other things, Bill S-211 defines child labour as including any labour that interferes with a child’s schooling or is mentally, physically, socially or morally dangerous to them.	The Act was introduced in the Canadian Senate on November 24, 2021 by Senator Julie Miville‐Dechêne. The bill had its second reading in the house of commons on December June 1, 2022. The Act is preceded by S‐211 (2020) and S‐216 (2020), both of which were also introduced by Senator Miville‐Dechêne and had similar goals and obligations as the Act. The Act would come into force on January 1 of the year following the year in which it receives royal assent.		> C$20 million in assets; or > C$40 million in revenue; or > 250 employees (2 out of 3 must apply; 2 last financial years as reference)	Own operations and subsidiaries; all suppliers and subcontractors in the entire global supply chain		No		Forced labor; Child labor	“Forced labor” would be defined as labor or service provided or offered to be provided by a person under circumstances that (1) could reasonably be expected to cause the person to believe their safety or the safety of a person known to them would be threatened if they failed to provide or offer to provide the labor or service or (2) constitute forced or compulsory labor as defined in Article 2 of the International Labour Organization’s Forced Labour Convention. That Convention defines forced or compulsory labor as all work or service which is exacted from any person under the menace of any penalty and for which the said person has not offered himself voluntarily (subject to several narrow exceptions specified in the Convention). “Child labor” would be defined as labor or service provided or offered to be provided by persons under the age of 18 and that: (1) are provided or offered to be provided in Canada under circumstances that are contrary to the laws applicable in Canada; (2) are provided or offered to be provided under circumstances that are mentally, physically, socially or morally dangerous to the persons providing the labor; (3) interfere with their schooling by depriving them of the opportunity to attend school, obliging them to leave school prematurely or requiring them to attempt to combine school attendance with excessively long and heavy work; or (4) constitute the worst forms of child labor as defined in Article 3 of the ILO’s Worst Forms of Child Labour Convention. That Convention defines the worst forms of child labor as (a) all forms of slavery or practices similar to slavery, such as the sale and trafficking of children, debt bondage and serfdom and forced or compulsory labor, including forced or compulsory recruitment of children for use in armed conflict, (b) the use, procuring or offering of a child for prostitution, for the production of pornography or for pornographic performances, (c) the use, procuring or offering of a child for illicit activities, in particular for the production and trafficking of drugs as defined in the relevant international treaties, or (d) work which, by its nature or the circumstances in which it is carried out, is likely to harm the health, safety or morals of children		Only disclosure	Only disclosure on entity's structure, activities and supply chain	Only disclosure	Only disclosure on training provided to employees on forced labor and child labor	Yes	Information about the parts of its business and supply chains that carry a risk of forced labor or child labor being used and the steps it has taken to assess that risk	Only disclosure	Only disclosure on the steps the entity has taken during the preceding fiscal year to prevent and reduce the risk that forced labor or child labor is used at any step of the production of goods in Canada or elsewhere by the entity or of goods imported into Canada by the entity; as well as its policies and its due diligence processes in relation to forced labor and child labor	Only disclosure	Only disclosure on due diligence processes	No		Only disclosure	Only disclosure, on any measures taken to remediate any forced labor or child labor; any measures taken to remediate the loss of income to the most vulnerable families that results from its measures taken to eliminate the use of forced or child labour	Only disclosure	Only disclosure on how the entity assesses its effectiveness in ensuring that forced labour and child labour are not being used in its business and supply chains.	true	Annual report, to be submitted to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness and made available to the public, including by publishing it in a prominent place on its website. The Minister would be required to maintain an electronic registry containing the reports provided to it. The registry would be required to be made available to the public on the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness website.				The Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness would be able to designate persons or classes of persons for the purposes of the administration and enforcement of the Act.	Yes	Entities that fail to submit or publish a report in accordance with the Ac, that knowingly makes a false or misleading statement or knowingly provides false or misleading information to the Minister or a person designated by the Minister to administer and enforce the Act, could be fined up to C$250,000.	true	An officer, director or agent of the person or entity who directed, authorized, assented to, acquiesced in or participated in the commission of an offense also could be held liable for the offense.				Not mentioned		Not mentioned		Not mentioned			Risk assessment, transparency	Medium	Needs to report on main risks, policies and their outcomes, under the threat of high fines (up to CAD 250'000) and individual liability if information is not provided or knowingly false or misleading		https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/S-211/third-reading	https://www.aim-progress.com/storage/resources/Ropes%20&%20Gray_AIM-Porgress_Corporate%20Social%20Responsibility%20Legislation%20Summary%20(February%202022).pdf	https://core-ombuds.canada.ca/core_ombuds-ocre_ombuds/memoire_loi_s-211_bill_brief.aspx?lang=eng	https://ciffa.com/ffo/fighting-against-forced-labour-and-child-labour-in-supply-chains-act/	https://www.mondaq.com/canada/human-rights/1175752/dynamic-legal-changes-to-address-forced-labour-and-child-labour-in-supply-chains?
		EU Non‐financial Reporting Directive	European Union	In force	2014		Companies - Banks; Insurance companies; NGO	EU‐listed companies, banks, insurance companies; and other companies designated by national authorities as public interest entities (“PIEs”)	All		All				2014	To drive improvements in social, human rights and environmental matters through enhanced disclosure. The Directive is passed into law at the Member State level, implying slightly different scopes and enforcement practices that may go beyond the EU Directive	Member states were required to transpose the NFRD into national law by 6 December 2016. On April 21, 2021, the European Commission (the “EC”) adopted a Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (the “CSRD”) that would replace the Directive and expand its scope.		Balance sheet total of more than €20 million or a net turnover of more than €40 million; AND an average number of employees for the year of more than 500. For parent companies, the consolidated figures of the whole group are used to determine whether the company must comply with the Directive. If so, the parent company is required to disclose the required non‐financial information (as described below) of the entire group. Subsidiaries are exempt from the reporting requirement if the parent organization reports, even if the subsidiary is independently subject to the Directive.	Not explicit		Environmental protection		Human rights; Conditions of employment; Anti-corruption & bribery; Diversity	Diversity on company boards (in terms of age, gender, educational and professional background)		No		No		Yes	Principal risks related to those matters linked to the company’s operations including, where relevant and proportionate, its business relationships, products or services which are likely to cause adverse impacts in those areas	Only disclosure	Only disclosure on how the company manages those risks, including due diligence processes implemented;	Only disclosure	Only disclosure on policies pursued by the company in relation to non‐financial aspects	No		Only disclosure	Only disclosure on policies pursued by the company in relation to non‐financial aspects	Only disclosure	Only disclosure on the outcome of corporate policies; internal control and reporting systems are recommended	true	The non-financial statement should include information necessary to understand the development, performance, position and impact of its activity, as it relates to at least environmental, social and employee matters, respect for human rights, anti-corruption and bribery matters. The content should include at least a description of (i) the entities’ business models, (ii) related policies and due diligence process, (iii) policy outcomes, (iv) the main risks arising from the non-financial matters out of the entities’ operations and (v) non-financial key performance indicators.				Enforcement varies by individual EU member state	Yes	Enforcement varies by individual EU member state						Not mentioned		Not mentioned		Yes	For parent companies, the consolidated figures of the whole group are used to determine whether the company must comply with the Directive. If so, the parent company is required to disclose the required non‐financial information (as described below) of the entire group. Subsidiaries are exempt from the reporting requirement if the parent organization reports, even if the subsidiary is independently subject to the Directive.		Risk assessment, transparency	Low	Needs to report on main risks, policies and their outcomes, but not undertake new actions		https://eur‐lex.europa.eu/legal‐content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32014L0095	https://www.aim-progress.com/storage/resources/Ropes%20&%20Gray_AIM-Porgress_Corporate%20Social%20Responsibility%20Legislation%20Summary%20(February%202022).pdf	https://www.accountancyeurope.eu/wp-content/uploads/171130-Publication-Definition-of-Public-Interest-Entities-in-Europe-published-version-2.pdf	https://www.dechert.com/knowledge/onpoint/2020/6/overview-of-the-eu-non-financial-reporting-directive.html
		Business Responsibility and Sustainability Reporting Requirement	India	In force	FY 2022-23		Companies - Stock listed	Companies must be listed on any of the recognized stock exchanges in India, such as the National Stock Exchange (NSE) or the Bombay Stock Exchange (BSE)	All		All			NA	2021	To make it mandatory for the top 1000 listed companies in the stock exchange (by market capitalisation), to report their sustainability performance from FY 2022 – 2023 onwards and maintain transparency with their key stakeholders.			Top 1000 listed entities by market capitalization	Entire supply chain: The proposal is to introduce a limited set of ESG disclosures i.e. BRSR Core in a gradual manner for top 250 companies (by market capitalization) by 2025-26. The ESG disclosures must be in compliance with SEBI regulations, and they should cover the entire supply chain of a company. This means that companies must report on issues related to every tier of their supply chain.		Environmental impact of company's activities		Societal concerns related to employees, respect for human rights and the fight against corruption across their value chains			No		Only disclosure	Only disclosure, on awareness and training sessions on aspects such as employee health and safety measures, anti-corruption issues and upskilling of workforce	Only disclosure	Only disclosure, with respect to any Environmental or Social Impact Assessments conducted	Only disclosure	Only disclosure, on steps taken to establish or review internal controls	Only disclosure	Only disclosure, on KPIs in accordance and alignment with the NGRBC’s nine principles of responsible business conduct, such as the percentage of the company’s offices and factories that were evaluated for: sexual harassment, employment discrimination, forced or involuntary labour, child labour, wages, and other issues are reported as well	Only disclosure	Only disclosure, about details of grievance mechanism for HR issues that is established internally to address complaints about human rights violations	Only disclosure	Only disclosure, on steps taken on corrective actions (e.g. re: corruption or human rights issues)	No		true	Annual report is required				Compliance is likely to be enforced by the Securities and Exchange Board of India, though the regulation has little detailed information	No							Not mentioned		Not mentioned		Not mentioned	Since only the 1000 largest companies are in scope		Risk assessment, transparency	Low	Needs to report on main risks, policies and their outcomes, but not undertake new actions		https://www.sebi.gov.in/legal/circulars/may-2021/business-responsibility-and-sustainability-reporting-by-listed-entities_50096.html	https://www.elevatelimited.com/insights/publications/supply-chain-due-diligence-legislation-map/	https://assets.ey.com/content/dam/ey-sites/ey-com/en_in/topics/climate-change/2023/ey-business-responsibility-and-sustainability-reporting.pdf?download
		Swiss ESG reporting obligation	Switzerland	In force	2023		Companies - of public interest; banks; insurance companies; financial institutions	Companies of public interest (i.e. listed companies, banks, insurance companies and other supervised financial institutions)	All		All				2020	To report the information necessary to understand the company's business and the impact of its activities on the environment (including CO2 targets) as well as societal concerns related to employees, respect for human rights and the fight against corruption across their value chains. The ESG reporting requirement is modeled after the EU Non-Financial Reporting Directive.			At least 500 fulltime employees on annual average, and exceed assets of CHF 20 million or revenues of CHF 40 million in two consecutive years (counting both domiciled company and controlled companies in Switzerland and abroad) Companies that are controlled by a company to which the new reporting requirements apply, or that are subject to equivalent reporting under foreign law, are not required to prepare an additional report. Large companies (Balance sheet > €20 million CHF; net turnover > €40 million CHF; and > 500 employees) that are listed on the stock market and domiciled in Switzerland	Not explicit		Environmental impact	Environmental impact of company's activities	Conditions of employment; Human rights; Anti-corruption & bribery	Societal concerns related to employees, respect for human rights and the fight against corruption across their value chains		No		No		Yes	Main ESG risks resulting from the company's own operations and, where relevant and proportionate, its business relationships, products or services	Only disclosure	Only disclosure on policies pursued to address the ESG risks, including due diligence applied. If a company does not have policies addressing certain ESG risk areas, the report must include an explanation of the reasons for such gap ('comply or explain'). The only defensible explanation that one could see is an assessment that a company's activities do not raise concerns in a certain area.	Only disclosure	Only disclosure on due diligence processes	No		No		Only disclosure	Only disclosure regarding outcome of corporate policies as well as non-financial key performance indicators applied regarding the company's response to ESG risks (KPIs).	true	ESG report; may be established in one of the Swiss national languages, or in English. It must be approved by the board of directors and the shareholders' meeting and made electronically accessible to the public during a period of 10 years.		Unlike the company's financial statements, the ESG report must not be audited		In principle, anyone can file a criminal complaint for a violation of ESG reporting rules. The cantonal criminal authorities are responsible for prosecuting the offences.	No	While Swiss criminal law knows the concept of corporate criminal liability, a legal entity cannot be fined for violations of articles 325bis and 325ter CC, as the corporate criminal liability does not apply for contraventions punishable by fines.	true	Based on a referral rule in Swiss criminal law, which attributes criminal liability to the members of the board of directors and management if a special obligation that is incumbent on the legal entity is violated (article 29 CC), the persons who are responsible for compliance with the ESG due diligence and reporting rules are criminally liable for violations. Non-compliance includes the inclusion of false statements in any of the newly required reports, the generic ESG Report and the report on compliance with due diligence measures in the area of conflict minerals and child labour, or the failure to issue any of these reports, or the failure to keep records of, or publish, these reports. If any of these acts is committed intentionally, the fine is up to CHF 100'000, if committed negligently, the fine is up to CHF 50'000. A conviction may lead to an entry in the criminal record of the natural person concerned and, for regulated companies, there may also be reporting obligations to supervisory authorities and potential concerns with fit and proper requirements for board members and executives in Switzerland and abroad. Deficient ESG due diligence or reporting may trigger civil liability under existing concepts, namely the liability of board members and management under article 754 of the Swiss Code of Obligations.				Not mentioned		Not mentioned		Yes	Companies that are controlled by a company to which the new reporting requirements apply, or that are subject to equivalent reporting under foreign law, are not required to prepare an additional report.		Risk assessment, transparency	Low	Needs to report on main risks, policies and their outcomes, but not undertake new actions		https://www.fedlex.admin.ch/eli/oc/2021/846/de	https://insightplus.bakermckenzie.com/bm/investigations-compliance-ethics/switzerland-esg-reporting-and-due-diligence-requirements#cntAnchor1	https://www.globalcompliancenews.com/2021/01/17/switzerland-esg-reporting-and-due-diligence-requirements17122020/	https://www.mondaq.com/shareholders/1171630/new-esg-rules-in-switzerland-how-to-mitigate-the-risk-of-criminal-liability
		Modern Slavery Act	New Zealand	Proposed	NA		Companies - Organizations and businesses	Organisations subject to New Zealand law	All		All			2023	NA	To make organisations and businesses be transparent about their operations and supply chains, as well as report and outline the actions they take to address exploitation risks in their operations and supply chains, through a new public register	The government announced their intent to draft this legislation in July 2023. The legislation will now be drafted which is expected to take around six months. During a prior consultation process, the government also considered introducing due diligence and 'take action' responsibilities. The government stated that broader reform to progress theseother more complex components that were consulted upon remains a priority for this Government in the future.		NZ$20 million or more in annual revenue	Entire supply chain		No		Modern slavery and worker exploitation			Only disclosure	Only disclosure, organisations must share information about all levels of their operations and supply chains	Not clear	Only disclosure	Only disclosure		Only disclosure		Only disclosure		No		Only disclosure		Only disclosure		true	Organisations will have to prepare an annual report. A digital register will be set up to ensure transparency, which is accessible to the public.				The Ministry for Workplace Relations and Safety is leading the legislative proposal	Yes	Penalties will be introduced for non-compliance, including failing to submit a statement or providing false information.						Not mentioned		Not mentioned		Not mentioned			Transparency	Low	Needs to assess modern slavery risk and report on actions taken to address it as well as their effectiveness, but not take new actions			https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/govt-prescribes-daylight-disinfectant-modern-slavery	https://www.mbie.govt.nz/business-and-employment/employment-and-skills/plan-of-action-against-forced-labour-people-trafficking-and-slavery/modern-slavery/	https://www.walkfree.org/news/2023/new-zealand-proposes-landmark-legislation-to-help-end-modern-slavery/	https://www.russellmcveagh.com/insights/july-en/government-greenlights-modern-slavery-legislation-for-new-zealand
		Illinois Business Supply Chain Transparency for Slavery, Trafficking, and Child Labor Act	USA	Proposed	NA		Companies - Manufacturer; Retailer	Manufacturers and retail sellers (as identified on their Illinois state tax returns)	All		All			2021	NA	To provide consumers with information regarding the efforts of large retailers and manufacturers to eradicate slavery, human trafficking, and child labor from their direct supply chains.	Illinois jurisdiction, especifically.		Annual worldwide gross receipts >US$100 million	Direct supply chain		No		Slavery; Human trafficking; Child labor			No		No		Only disclosure	Only disclosure on verification of product supply chains to evaluate and address risks of slavery, human trafficking and child labor. Disclosure would be required to specify if verification was not conducted by a third party	Only disclosure	Only disclosure on verification of product supply chains to evaluate and address risks of slavery, human trafficking and child labor, and whether company requires direct suppliers to certify that materials incorporated into the product comply with the laws regarding slavery and human trafficking of the country or countries in which they are doing business.	Only disclosure	Only disclosure on whether company conducts audits of suppliers to evaluate supplier compliance with company standards for the elimination of slavery, trafficking, and child labor in supply chains. Disclosure would be required to specify if the audit was not an independent, unannounced audit	No		Only disclosure	Only disclosure on whether company maintains internal accountability standards and procedures for employees or contractors failing to meet company standards regarding the elimination of slavery, human trafficking, and child labor.	Only disclosure	Only disclosure of the audits conducted of suppliers to evaluate supplier compliance with company standards for the elimination of slavery, trafficking, and child labor in supply chains. Disclosure would be required to specify if the audit was not an independent, unannounced audit; Internal accountability standards maintained and procedures for employees or contractors failing to meet company standards regarding the elimination of slavery, human trafficking, and child labor.	true	Disclosure required to be posted: on the retail seller’s or manufacturer’s website, with a conspicuous and easily understood link to the required information placed on the homepage of the business; or if the retail seller or manufacturer does not have a website, the retail seller or manufacturer would be required to provide written disclosure within 30 days of receiving a written request for the disclosure from a customer.				The exclusive remedy for a violation of the Act would be an action brought by the Attorney General for injunctive relief.	No							Not mentioned		Not mentioned		Not mentioned			Transparency	Low	Only needs to disclose current action, not start new ones		https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/102/HB/10200HB4061.htm	https://www.aim-progress.com/storage/resources/Ropes%20&%20Gray_AIM-Porgress_Corporate%20Social%20Responsibility%20Legislation%20Summary%20(February%202022).pdf
		California Supply Chain Transparency Act	USA	In force	2012		Companies - Manufacturers; Retail sellers	As identified on their California state tax returns.	All		All				2010	To reduce modern slavery through enhanced disclosure.	California jurisdiction, especifically.		Annual worldwide gross receipts >US$100 million	Direct supplier, contractors, employees		No		Slavery; Human trafficking	Slavery and human trafficking Through the California Trafficking Victims Protection Act (AB 22) of 2005, as amended in 2010, the California Legislature defined human trafficking as “[a]ny person who deprives or violates the personal liberty of another with the intent to obtain forced labor or services…”. The Act also adopts the federal definition of “severe forms of trafficking in persons” which is defined as “the recruitment, harboring, transportation, provision, or obtaining of a person for labor or services, through the use of force, fraud, or coercion for the purpose of subjection to involuntary servitude, peonage, debt bondage, or slavery.” The Act established human trafficking as a felony under Penal Code section 236.1; directed the California Attorney General to give human trafficking high priority status along with other crimes; provided for mandatory restitution to trafficking victims and allowed them to bring a civil action against their traffickers; and provided for a human trafficking victim-caseworker privilege to protect confidential information.		No		Only disclosure	Only disclosure on training of company employees and management who have direct responsibility for supply chain management on human trafficking and slavery, particularly with respect to mitigating risks within the supply chains of products	Only disclosure	Only disclosure on whether company engages in verification of product supply chains to evaluate and address risks of human trafficking and slavery	Only disclosure	Only disclosure on certification that materials incorporated into the product comply with the laws regarding slavery and human trafficking of the country or countries in which they are doing business	Only disclosure	Only disclosure on whether company conducts audits of suppliers to evaluate supplier compliance with company standards for trafficking and slavery in supply chains. The disclosure must specify if the verification was not an independent, unannounced audit	No		Only disclosure	Only disclosure on whether company maintains internal accountability standards and procedures for employees or contractors failing to meet company standards regarding slavery and trafficking	No		true	Disclosure posted on the company's website accessible by a “conspicuous and easily understood” homepage link or if the company subject to the law has no website it must provide written disclosures within 30 days of receiving a written consumer request for the information.				The attorney general may file a civil action for injunctive relief	No							Not mentioned		Not mentioned		No	The Act applies even to companies that take no actions related to these five disclosure categories. In this circumstance, a company could simply disclose that, as to each category, it does not take any actions.		Transparency	Low	Only needs to disclose current action, not start new ones		https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/cybersafety/sb_657_bill_ch556.pdf	https://www.aim-progress.com/storage/resources/Ropes%20&%20Gray_AIM-Porgress_Corporate%20Social%20Responsibility%20Legislation%20Summary%20(February%202022).pdf	https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/sb657/resource‐guide.pdf
		Proposal for a Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD)	European Union	Adopted	2024; The first companies will have to apply the new rules for the first time in the 2024 financial year, for reports published in 2025.		Companies	All large companies and all companies listed on regulated markets (except listed micro-enterprises)	All		All			2021	NA	To assess sustainability risks and impacts associated with their business model and strategy, sustainability opportunities and compatibility with the Paris Agreement. Companies would be required to provide qualitative and quantitative sustainability information. CSRD is adopted to expand the scope of EU Non-financial reporting directive	Anticipated effect 2024. The next step is for the European Parliament, and the Member States in the Council, to negotiate a final legislative text on the basis of the Commission's proposal. The final timetable will depend on how the Parliament and Council progress in their negotiations. If they reach agreement in the first half of 2022, then the Commission should be able to adopt the first set of reporting standards under the new legislation by the end of 2022. On 5 January 2023, the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) entered into force.		Large companies defined as: > 250 employees and/or > €40M turnover and/or > €20M total assets (2 criteria need to apply)	Not explicit		Environmental protection; Climate change		Human rights; Conditions of employment; Anti-corruption & bribery; Diversity	Diversity on company boards (in terms of age, gender, educational and professional background)		No		No		Yes	Description of principal risks related to sustainability matters; adverse impacts connected with the value chain	Only disclosure	Only disclosure on company’s sustainability policy including due diligence processes implemented	Only disclosure	Only disclosure on due diligence processes	No		No		Only disclosure	Only disclosure on targets and progress made to achieve those targets; appropriate corporate governance arrangements (for instance, certain independent board members or a board committee entrusted with responsibility over sustainability and/or transparency matters); and robust and reliable evidence, internal control and reporting systems	true	Included in management report which is generally included in the annual report; requires companies to digitally ‘tag’ the reported information, so it is machine readable and feeds into the European single access point envisaged in the capital markets union action plan	true	Mandatory assurance: Limited assurance to move to reasonable in the future as the reporting framework evolves		Enforcement varies by individual EU member state	Yes	Enforcement varies by individual EU member state						Not mentioned		Not mentioned		Yes	Listed micro-enterprises (less than 10 employees or below €20M in turnover) are exempt; small and medium listed companies get an extra 3 years to comply - Exemption for subsidiaries to publish sustainability reporting in their management report, if the sustainability reporting in the parent’s consolidated management report complies with EU sustainability reporting standards - For non-EU parents if they publish information that is equivalent to EU standards and includes information related to the subsidiary and is available when the subsidiary publishes its management report		Risk assessment, target-setting, transparency	Medium	Needs to report on main risks, targets, policies and their outcomes, and provide (limited) mandatory assurance of provided information, but not undertake new actions		https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52021PC0189	https://ec.europa.eu/info/publications/210421-sustainable-finance-communication_en#csrd	https://www2.deloitte.com/mt/en/pages/sustainability/articles/corporate-sustainability-reporting-directive.html
		Washington Transparency in Agricultural Supply Chains Act	USA	Proposed	NA		Companies - Retailer	Retail seller of named agricultural products.	cocoa; dairy; coffee; sugar; fruit products		All			2019	NA	To protect the rights of workers in agricultural supply chains through enhanced disclosure.	Washington jurisdiction, especifically. The Act was reintroduced in the 2020 regular session on January 13, 2020		Annual worldwide gross receipts of at least $200 million	Suppliers are included. "Supplier" is defined as an individual, business or entity in any form that is contracted by a retailer of agricultural products for the supply of agricultural products		No		Slavery; Servitude; Forced labor; Deceptive recruiting; Debt bondage; Forced marriage; Human trafficking; Child labour; Conditions of employment			No		No		Only disclosure	Only disclosure on specific actions taken, if any, with respect to its product supply chains to evaluate risks of slavery, peonage and human trafficking	Only disclosure	Only disclosure on specific actions taken, if any, to address risks of slavery, peonage and human trafficking in its supply chain, ensure compliance employment laws; and respect workers' human rights	Yes	Require its suppliers to annually report violations of employment-related laws and/or incidents of slavery, peonage and human trafficking, including any: • Court or arbitration rulings; • Citations or other rulings by governmental agencies; and • Criminal convictions.	No		No		No		true	Annual statement, required to be posted on the retail seller’s website “with a conspicuous and easily understood link.” In the event the retail seller does not have an internet website, it would be required to provide consumers with a written disclosure within 30 days of receiving a written request for the disclosure from a consumer. Statement should provide overview of actions taken as well as information disclosed from suppliers				The attorney general would be able to commence a civil action in a Washington State court against a retail seller of agricultural products or a supplier for a violation of the Act.	Yes	If a court finds that a retail seller of agricultural products or a supplier has violated the Act, the court would be able to award to the plaintiff: • Statutory damages of not less than $500 and not more than $7,000 for each such violation; • Punitive damages for willful violations; • Reasonable costs and attorneys' fees; and • Declaratory or injunctive relief as the court deems appropriate.						Not mentioned		Not mentioned		Not mentioned			Suppliers disclosing employment-based legal violations; transparency	Medium	Need to gather information from suppliers, report on measures taken		https://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2019-20/Pdf/Bills/Senate%20Bills/5693-S.pdf#page=1	https://www.aim-progress.com/storage/resources/Ropes%20&%20Gray_AIM-Porgress_Corporate%20Social%20Responsibility%20Legislation%20Summary%20(February%202022).pdf	https://www.klgates.com/Modern-Slavery-and-Transparency-Legislation-in-the-US--States-May-Follow-Suit-04-02-2019
		UK Mandatory TCFD disclosures	United Kingdom	In force	2022		Companies - NGOs		All		All				2017	Firms will be required to disclose climate-related financial information, ensuring they consider the risks and opportunities they face as a result of climate change.	2022 (initial), 2025 (full implementation). From 6 April 2022, over 1,300 of the largest UK-registered companies and financial institutions will have to disclose climate-related financial information on a mandatory basis – in line with recommendations from the Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures.		> 500 employees (for Relevant Public Interest Entities ("PIEs") in the UK that have transferable securities admitted to trading on a UK regulated market (as defined in section 1173 Companies Act 2006), banking and insurance companies; and UK registered companies with securities admitted to AIM); > 500 employees and > £500 million turnover (for other UK registered companies and Limited liability partnerships)	Not explicit		Climate change		No			No		No		Yes	A description of principal climate-related risks and opportunities arising in connection with the operations of the company as well as the actual and potential impacts of the principal climate-related risks and opportunities on the company’s/LLP’s business model and strategy. The risks and opportunities should be categorised, wherever possible, into short term, medium term and long term and the company or LLP should explain how it has determined the time periods that it is treating as short, medium and long term. Also, company disclosures should distinguish between physical risks (e.g., higher frequency or severity of weather-related events such as winter storms and longer-term changes to weather patterns and associated sea-level rises, hot or cold waves and droughts) and relevant climate “transition” risks across the spectrum of technology, policy, market and legal and reputational, associated with mitigation of and adaptation to climate change	Only disclosure	Only disclosure on description of the governance arrangements of the company or LLP in relation to assessing and managing climate-related risks and opportunities; a description of how the company or LLP identifies, assesses, and manages climate-related risks and opportunities; a description of how processes for identifying, assessing, and managing climate-related risks are integrated into the overall risk management process in the company or LLP; an analysis of the resilience of the business model and strategy of the company or LLP, taking into consideration of different climate-related scenarios	No		No		No		Only disclosure	Only disclosure on description of the targets used by the company or LLPs to manage climate-related risks and to realise climate-related opportunities and of performance against those targets; a description of the key performance indicators used to assess progress against targets used to manage climate-related risks and realise climate-related opportunities and a description of the calculations on which those key performance indicators are based.	true	Disclosure in the annual report for companies that produce one; A relevant company should disclose its climate-related financial disclosures within the section of the Non-Financial and Sustainability Information Statement. The regulations have introduced this change of name. LLPs should include their disclosures in the Energy and Carbon Report or, if a Strategic Report is prepared, within that report. The regulations do not prescribe a format for these climate-related disclosures.		The disclosures do not require independent external assurance, however, disclosures should be subject to internal governance processes that are the same or substantially similar to those used for financial reporting		The Financial Reporting Council (FRC) has the responsibility to monitor the contents of Strategic Reports and the power ultimately to make an application to the court for a declaration that the annual report and accounts of a company do not comply, or a Strategic Report or a Directors’ Report does not comply, with the requirements of the Companies Act.	No	No financial penalties for non-compliance but the The Financial Reporting Council has the power to monitor strategic reports and to request that a court order the preparation of revised documents.						Not mentioned		Not mentioned		Yes	Companies are expected to report at the group level (or at the company level if not included within consolidated group reporting). Subsidiaries whose activities are included within a consolidated group report of a UK parent that complies with the climate-related financial disclosures requirements are not required to report separately. There is an exemption from the disclosure requirements at company level where that company’s activities are included in a consolidated report and there is a UK parent company. Where a UK company has an overseas parent which reports on a consolidated basis, the exemption does not apply.		Risk assessment, target-setting, transparency	Low	Needs to report on main risks, targets, and monitoring and evaluation steps, but not undertake new actions		https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1056085/mandatory-climate-related-financial-disclosures-publicly-quoted-private-cos-llps.pdf	https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-to-enshrine-mandatory-climate-disclosures-for-largest-companies-in-law	https://www.osborneclarke.com/insights/are-you-ready-mandatory-tcfd-reporting-uk#:~:text=For%20commercial%20businesses%2C%20the%20government,are%20expected%20in%20spring%202022.	https://assets.bbhub.io/company/sites/60/2021/10/FINAL-2017-TCFD-Report.pdf
	Related legislation and initiatives to keep on radar
		(Non-binding) Guidelines on Respecting Human Rights in Responsible Supply Chains	Japan	Published	NA		Companies	All business enterprises including sole proprietors engaging in business activities in Japan	All		All				2022	To promote respect for international standards on human rights with a view to assisting entities to identify and prevent human rights related abuses in their global supply chains			All sizes	Own business enterprise, group companies, suppliers, etc. inside and outside Japan. “supply chain” as used in the Guidelines refers to “upstream” in relation to the procurement and securing, etc. of raw materials and resources for a business enterprise’s products and services, facilities, and software, and also “downstream” in relation to the sale, consumption, and disposal etc. of its products and services		Somewhat	Makes reference to "human right to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment", though it is framed as contested	Human rights	Covers internationally recognised human rights, including freedom from forced labour and child labour, freedom of association, the right to collective bargaining, freedom from discrimination in employment and occupation, freedom of movement and residence, freedom from discrimination on the ground of race, disability, religion, social origin, or gender.		Yes	Business enterprises are encouraged to gather information on suppliers and ensure the traceability of their products and services. In cases where traceability is limited, it is important for business enterprises to make efforts to understand the adverse human rights impacts of suppliers with poor traceability through dialogues with stakeholders, the establishment of grievance mechanisms, or cooperation with industry associations. The guidelines do not specify a specific level of traceability.	No	However, a human rights policy should be implemented; actively communicated internally and externally to all personnel, business partners, other relevant business parties and the public; and embedded throughout the entity’s business operations. The policy should define what is expected of personnel, business partners and other relevant parties, and should be appropriately tailored based on the entity’s assessment of potential impacts to human rights during the course of its business activities.	Yes	Identify the business fields where the probability of adverse human rights impacts is high and material risks exist	Yes	Business enterprises need to appropriately work to prevent or mitigate adverse human rights impacts identified and assessed under the ultimate responsibility of the management, after clarifying the responsible departments and persons. Due diligence should be carried out periodically as well as at other appropriate times, including (i) before embarking on a new business activity or business relationship; (ii) before any major decisions or changes in operations are implemented; and/or (iii) in response to, or in anticipation of, changes in the operating environment.	Yes	Implement a human rights due diligence process to identify, prioritise and address (potential) adverse impacts to human rights during the course of the entity’s business activity, as well as prevention or mitigation of adverse impacts throughout their supply chain.	Yes	Establish a grievance mechanism that is a series of processes to address grievances and disputes pertaining to the business enterprises and their stakeholders, or participate in a grievance mechanism established by an industry organization and others	Yes	Remedies will vary depending on the nature and scope of the adverse impact, and a grievance mechanism will assist an entity in determining the appropriate remedy. The Guidelines highlight the leverage (or influence) an entity may have on its business partners, suppliers and other external parties, and that this comes with it the responsibility to use this leverage or influence to mitigate or prevent adverse impacts. The appropriate type or combination of remedies varies depending on the nature and the scope of the adverse impact. An appropriate remedy from the viewpoint of the stakeholders suffering the adverse human rights impact should be provided. Specific examples may include apologies, restitution, rehabilitation, and financial or non-financial compensation, as well as establishment or statement of a recurrence prevention process, and request for recurrence prevention to the suppliers, etc.	Yes	Business enterprises need to track whether they have effectively identified, assessed, prevented, and mitigated adverse human rights impacts, and make continued improvement based on the results. Business enterprises should integrate the procedures of effectiveness tracking in their internal process. This will contribute to institutionalizing efforts to respect human rights in the business enterprises.	true	Business enterprises should be able to explain that they meet their responsibility to respect human rights. When facing an allegation of human rights abuse, especially expressed by stakeholders that could be adversely affected, it is essential for the business enterprise to be able to explain the measures it has taken. Contents and scope of information disclosure are left to the discretion of the business enterprise according to its situation. For disclosure to the general public, information may be posted on the website of the business enterprise, or disclosed in an integrated report, sustainability report, CSR report, or human rights report, for example. This kind of information provision can be periodic or non-periodic, but it is desirable to be at least once a year.				No	No							Not mentioned		Not mentioned	Not mentioned				No binding requirements; recommendation to move toward due diligence processes	Low	No binding requirements		https://www.meti.go.jp/english/press/2022/pdf/0913_001a.pdf	https://sustainablefutures.linklaters.com/post/102hyci/japan-publishes-human-rights-due-diligence-guidelines
		(Non-binding) Business and Human Rights Guide	South Korea	Published	NA		Companies	All business enterprises, Implicitly: Engaging in business activities in Japan	All		All				2021	The Framework Act on Human Rights Policy provides for “corporate responsibility to respect human rights” (Article 17) and “government’s efforts for prevention of companies’ human rights violation” (Article 18) in Chapter 5 Business and Human Rights. Article 18 of the proposed Framework Act provides that the government may establish laws and policies to prevent companies from violating human rights; distribute detailed guidelines and standards for companies to practise corporate responsibility and respect human rights; and disclose best practices of corporate responsibility to respect human rights. In this regard, the Ministry of Justice issued the Business and Human Rights Guide on December 23 2021. This can be seen as the government providing non-binding guidelines to support private companies that voluntarily practise corporate responsibility to respect human rights.			All sizes	Own business enterprise and activities as well as supply chain and business relations		Yes	As related to environmental rights. Business enterprises should establish and maintain a framework for environmental management, and conduct environmental impact assessments as necessary to prevent or mitigate environmental damage	Human rights	Covers internationally recognised human rights, including freedom from forced labour and child labour, freedom of association, the right to collective bargaining, freedom from discrimination in employment and occupation, freedom of movement and residence, freedom from discrimination on the ground of race, disability, religion, social origin, or gender.		Yes	Yes, implicitly	Yes	Regular human rights training should be provided to raise the awareness of staff members on human rights issues. Also, specialized training programs should be provided for personnel with high exposure to human rights risks.	Yes	Business enterprises should identify and evaluate actual or potential adverse human rights impacts that may arise from business operation and activities and across business relationships, including the supply chain.	Yes	To prevent or mitigate adverse human rights impacts, integrate the findings from the human rights impact assessment in the overall functions and procedures of the business enterprise. Prepare and implement specific strategies to address those impacts across business projects, operations, internal decision-making processes, budget allocation, training, and business relationships	Yes	Business enterprises should identify and evaluate actual or potential adverse human rights impacts that may arise from business operation and activities and across business relationships, including the supply chain.	Yes	By establishing internal grievance mechanisms, business enterprises may provide swift remedy for human rights victims of business activities and preempt the spread of adverse human rights impacts.	Yes	The purpose of grievance mechanisms is to provide remedy for human rights violations that have already occurred, which has the effect of preventing disputes by keeping human rights issues from spreading externally.	Yes	The business enterprise should monitor the development of a corporate culture that prevents human rights violations and respects human rights, and track the effectiveness of measures to address adverse human rights impacts in relevant business units and the entire enterprise	true	Document the entire process of human rights due diligence and disclose this to stakeholder and the public, to share the enterprise’s efforts to prevent adverse human rights impacts. Secure various channels to allow access by stakeholders and the public.				No	No							Not mentioned		Not mentioned	Yes				No binding requirements; recommendation to move toward due diligence processes	Low	No binding requirements		https://viewer.moj.go.kr/skin/doc.html?rs=/result/bbs/51&fn=temp_1672625107878100	https://www.iflr.com/article/2a647zxame68p5fi0d1c0/business-and-human-rights-trends-in-south-korea	https://www.iflr.com/article/2bfolngzwc7xbabtckmps/sponsored/unraveling-the-evolving-trends-in-business-and-human-rights-in-south-korea
		(Non-binding) National Guidelines on Business and Human Rights (Decree No 9.571/2018)	Brazil	Published	NA		Companies	All business enterprises. Companies conducting business in Brazil (including multinational companies with activities inside the country)	All		All				2018	In general, the text seeks to promote human rights in the business environment in compliance with the norms established in the Federal Constitution, infra-constitutional norms, and international conventions to which Brazil is a signatory. Adherence to the guidelines is voluntary, however, companies that implement them may earn the seal "Company and Human Rights" through an act of the Minister of State for Human Rights, generating value and recognition for their business.			Medium and large (micro and small enterprises as far as possible)	Entire supply chain		Yes	Also refers to environmental damage	Human rights	Covers internationally recognised human rights		Yes	Yes, implicitly	Yes	Companies should implement educational activities on human rights for its human resources and employees, with the dissemination of national legislation and international parameters, focusing on standards relevant to the practice of individuals and the risks to human rights; use education, awareness and training mechanisms, such as courses, lectures and learning assessments, so that its managers, employees, collaborators, distributors, commercial partners and third parties are aware of the company's values, standards and policies and know their role in the success of the programs	Yes	Companies should monitor respect for human rights in the production chain linked to the company	Yes	Companies should prevent their activities from causing, contributing to or being directly related to negative impacts on human rights and environmental and social damage; avoid impacts and damages arising from the activities of its subsidiaries and entities under its control or direct or indirect links	Yes	It is up to companies to identify the risks of impact and violation of human rights in the context of their operations, with the adoption of appropriate and effective prevention and control actions and, mainly periodically carry out effective reassessment procedures in matters of human rights, to identify, prevent, mitigate and account for the risk, impact and violation arising from its activities, operations and commercial relations	Yes	It is the responsibility of companies to establish operational reporting and complaint mechanisms that allow risks and impacts to be identified and violations to be repaired	Yes	Companies should comprehensively repair the people and communities affected	Yes	Companies should develop and permanently improve procedures for controlling and monitoring risks, impacts and violations and repairing the negative consequences on human rights that they cause or have contributed to causing	true	It is the responsibility of companies to adopt measures to guarantee active transparency, with the disclosure of relevant information, documents accessible to interested parties, regarding mechanisms for the protection of human rights and the prevention and repair of human rights violations				Unclear; most likely via Minister of State for Human Rights	No	Positive incentive via ability to receive seal "Company and Human Rights" through an act of the						Not mentioned		Not mentioned	Yes	Micro-enterprises and small businesses may, to the extent of their abilities, comply with the Directives referred to in the Decree, observing the provisions of Complementary Law 123/2006 and Article 179 of the Federal Constitution.			No binding requirements; recommendation to move toward due diligence processes	Low	No binding requirements		http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2015-2018/2018/decreto/D9571.htm	https://lcbackerblog.blogspot.com/2019/01/when-private-approaches-go-public.html	https://www.ibanet.org/Mandatory-human-rights-due-diligence-Brazil
		Joint Declaration on Living Wage and Living Income	Netherlands	Signed joint declaration	NA		NA		NA		NA				2021	The Joint Declaration proposes a number of concrete actions such as a dialogue between consuming and producing countries with regard to adequate minimum wages and incomes, support for the International Labour Organization (ILO) in order to develop international definitions and indicators, and support for social dialogue, which will empower workers in producing countries. Furthermore, the like-minded countries pledge to work together to put the issue on the agenda of EU regulation and policy and integrate it in National Action Plans. The four signatories of this Joint Declaration support an ambitious EU Directive on Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence (CSDDD) which protects the rights of workers and smallholder farmers in global supply chains. They explicitly welcome the position of the European Parliament from 1st June 2023 in this regard, which proposes to include living incomes for producers and smallholders in the upcoming EU-Directive on Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence.			NA	NA		No		Living wage	Living wage and living income		NA																					NA	NA														Most likely show efforts to contribute to achieving living wages and incomes in supply chains	Medium to high	Level of changes to status quo still under debate		https://gouvernement.lu/dam-assets/documents/actualites/2023/06-juin/27-joint-declaration-living-wage-living-income/joint-declaration-signed-by-de-lu-be-nl.pdf	https://gouvernement.lu/en/actualites/toutes_actualites/communiques/2023/06-juin/27-joint-declaration-living-wage-living-income.html	https://diplomatie.belgium.be/en/policy/policy-areas/highlighted/belgium-committed-living-income
		National Action Plan on Business and Human Rights	Indonesia	Published	NA		Companies	Companies domiciled and economically active in Indonesia	All		All			NA	2017	The aim behind the National Action Plan on Business and Human Rights is to promote economic growth while respecting human rights in Indonesia. The policy proposes several measures to ensure that corporations operating in Indonesia respect human rights and do not cause harm to individuals or communities.	A first National Action Plan was prepared in 2017 by the National Commission on Human Rights, however has not received legitimacy and recognition from most of the Indonesian governmental institutions. It has, however, significantly contributed to further dialogues and commitment from the government to develop a NAP on BHR. The Coordinating Ministry of Economic Affairs, which was the national focal point for BHR until 2020, led the development of a NAP that could be legitimized by the government and handed over to the Ministry of Law and Human Rights, which has been the new National Focal Point for BHR since September 2020. This (new) NAP is called the National Strategy on Business and Human Rights/NS-BHR (Strategi Nasional Bisnis dan HAM/Stranas BHAM). On 14 October 2021, the Ministry of Law and Human Rights, conducted a public consultation to obtain feedback on the draft National Strategy. An additional call for inputs via a Google docs form was available online until 21 October 2021. The description refers to the already existing Action Plan.		All sizes	Entire supply chain; The National Action Plan on Business and Human Rights requires companies to conduct due diligence to identify, prevent, mitigate, and account for the adverse impacts on human rights that may arise in their business activities, including their upstream value chain . The policy does not limit the scope of due diligence to the first-tier suppliers only, but it requires companies to identify and address the adverse impacts on human rights that may arise in their entire value chain, including their indirect suppliers . Therefore, the suppliers of suppliers are also covered by the policy. However, the extent of the responsibility of the company in question will depend on the degree of influence or control that the company has over its suppliers and the severity of the adverse impacts on human rights that may arise in the value chain		Environmental impact		Human rights	The responsibility of the business company to respect human rights refers to the human rights that are internationally recognized, with the understanding, at least, as contained in the International Bill of Human Rights and the principles on the basic rights contained in the Declaration of the International Labor Organization on the Principles and Basic Rights at the Work Place.		Yes	Yes, implicitly	Yes	The corporate may carry out the following steps: Improve the staff capacity at the management level in order to prepare the complaint handling and remedy mechanisms related to the impacts that harm Human Rights, which occur due to the operation of those corporations as well as their business relationship with the third party	Yes	The corporate should carry out the human rights due diligence by way of assessing the actual potential and impacts on human rights. The human rights assessment should be carried out prior to the operation of the corporate and carried out periodically during the corporate operation. This assessment may be integrated into the assessment of other impacts, such as the environmental or social impacts.	Yes	The corporate should carry out the human rights due diligence by way of assessing the actual potential and impacts on human rights. The human rights assessment should be carried out prior to the operation of the corporate and carried out periodically during the corporate operation. This assessment may be integrated into the assessment of other impacts, such as the environmental or social impacts.	Yes	In the framework of complying with their responsibilities to respect Human Rights, the business companies should have decent policies and processes in accordance with the size and condition, including: A Human Rights due diligence process in order to identify, prevent, mitigate, and perform the accountability in their system to overcome impacts on Human Rights	Yes	According to the Comments of the Guiding Principles, the company itself, or with the related party or industrial association or a group of stakeholders may develop the complaint mechanism. Further on, in order to handle the complaint as early as possible and published directly, the business company should develop or participate in the complaint mechanism at the operation level, which is effective for individuals and the community that may possibly be affected by detrimental impacts.	Yes	The corporate may carry out the following steps: Develop the community based remedy mechanism that is easily accessible and responsive toward the need of protecting the rights of vulnerable groups	No		true	The United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights confirm that the objective of the Human Rights due diligence is described as a series of actions to identify, prevent, mitigate, and take into account the detrimental impacts. One of the Guiding Principles then determined to implement the Human Rights is to externally communicate the actions taken by the company in order to overcome impacts				Not specified	No							Not mentioned		Not mentioned	Not mentioned				No binding requirements; recommendation to move toward due diligence processes	Low	No binding requirements		https://www.komnasham.go.id/files/20180214-national-action-plan-on-bussiness-$0PU5O0.pdf	https://www.undp.org/indonesia/press-releases/draft-national-strategy-business-and-human-rights-aims-integrate-human-rights-and-business-indonesia	https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1MDe4bX5fkcDvjk_RFU43oyTtJzpB-8QQ
	National Strategies, Action Plans, and Guidelines
		Brazil's Dirty List	Brazil	In force	2004										NA	The Dirty List, which was created by the now-defunct Ministry of Labor and Commerce by decree in 2004, is one of Brazil’s most famous anti-slavery tools. It is released every six months and publicly names companies that the Labor Inspection Secretariat has identified as using slave labor. Although the legal punishments it implements are limited, companies on the list are barred from receiving state loans and some private loans. Many Brazilian and international companies have committed to ending relationships with businesses on the Dirty List.																																																			https://mneguidelines.oecd.org/chinese-due-diligence-guidelines-for-responsible-mineral-supply-chains.htm
		Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 on maximum residue levels of pesticides in or on food and feed of plant and animal origin	European Union	In force	2005										2005	This Regulation governs the allowable maximum residue levels of various pesticides on food and feed consumed in the European Union, and applies both to local production as well as to imported products. The European Coffee Federation maintains an overview document of pesticides relevant to coffee imports. A current issue on the table is the lowering of maximum residue levels of glysophate from 0.1mg/kg to 0.05*mg/kg, which could lead to trade flow disruptions. Simultaneously, there is a heated discussion surrounding the approval of the use of glyphosate as an ingredient in plant protection products in the EU; its authorization of use is due to expire in December 2023 unless it is renewed. Please reach out to ECF for more detailed information.																																																			https://www.gov.br/trabalho-e-emprego/pt-br/noticias-e-conteudo/2023/abril/ministerio-do-trabalho-e-emprego-divulga-atualizacao-da-lista-de-empregadores-flagrados-utilizando-mao-de-obra-analoga-a-de-escravo
		Chinese Due Diligence Guidelines for Responsible Mineral Supply Chains	China	Published	NA										2015	These voluntary guidelines, elaborated by the China Chamber of Commerce of Metals, Minerals and Chemicals Importers & Exporters (CCCMC) in close cooperation with the OECD, is the only reference to formalized due diligence guidelines in China to date. It focuses on advising companies on how to identify, prevent and mitigate their risks of directly or indirectly contributing to conflict, serious human rights abuses and risks of serious misconduct. However, we did not add it to the full database given its provenance (the CCCMC is an industry association, though it operates under the guidance of the Ministry of Commerce of China) and its product scope (minerals only)

Scroll to See More

Authors

Database of disclosure, due diligence, and trade-based supply chain legislation of relevance for the coffee sector.
Grabs, Janina and Fatimah, Zunaira (2023). “2023 database of disclosure, due diligence, and trade-based supply chain legislation of potential relevance for the coffee sector”.
Barcelona: Universitat Ramon Llull, ESADE Business School.

Disclaimer & Date

This is not legal advice. Information can change. This is the available information current to 14.09.2022 and it should not be interpreted as legal advice.

How to read this database

Each row represents a specific legislation. You can use the search feature for any word or number and you can also apply filters such as by geography or type of entity targeted.

Link to summary document

Some insights drawn from this database are summarized in the brief “Overview of disclosure, due diligence, and trade-based supply chain legislation of relevance for the coffee sector” that is available.