The UN Human Rights Council endorsed the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs). The UNGPs helped set a shared baseline for what “human rights due diligence” means for companies, influencing later supply-chain transparency campaigns and laws.
The OECD published its Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Supply Chains of Minerals from Conflict-Affected and High-Risk Areas. It provided a step-by-step approach for companies to identify and manage risks like conflict financing and serious human rights abuses in mineral supply chains, shaping later reporting and compliance expectations.
California’s Transparency in Supply Chains Act (SB 657) created a major early, disclosure-focused model for addressing forced labor risks. It required certain large retailers and manufacturers doing business in California to post public information on their efforts in areas such as supplier audits and employee training.
The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission adopted a rule to implement Dodd-Frank Act Section 1502 on “conflict minerals” (tin, tantalum, tungsten, and gold). The rule required covered companies to publicly disclose whether these minerals originated in the Democratic Republic of the Congo or adjoining countries, pushing upstream transparency through corporate filings.
Following the Rana Plaza factory collapse, brands and trade unions signed the Accord on Fire and Building Safety in Bangladesh. It became a notable example of a binding, multi-stakeholder approach to supply-chain accountability, centered on independent inspections and remediation in garment factories.
The EU adopted the Non-Financial Reporting Directive (2014/95/EU), requiring certain large public-interest entities to disclose non-financial information. While not limited to supply chains, the directive helped normalize public reporting on environmental and social impacts and risks that often arise in global value chains.
The UK Modern Slavery Act became law, including Section 54 “Transparency in Supply Chains.” It required qualifying organizations to publish an annual modern slavery statement describing steps taken to address slavery and human trafficking risks in their operations and supply chains, spreading a disclosure model beyond the U.S.
France adopted Law No. 2017-399 on the corporate “duty of vigilance,” moving beyond disclosure toward required action. Covered large companies must create and implement a vigilance plan to identify and prevent serious human rights and environmental harms linked to subsidiaries, subcontractors, and suppliers.
The EU signed a regulation requiring due diligence for EU importers of tin, tantalum, tungsten, and gold from conflict-affected and high-risk areas. The regulation explicitly drew on OECD due diligence concepts and aimed to reduce the risk that mineral trade finances conflict and abuses.
Australia’s Commonwealth Modern Slavery Act 2018 entered into force and created a national reporting requirement for large entities. It expanded the geographic spread of mandatory supply-chain modern slavery reporting and introduced a public statements register to support transparency.
After a transition period, the EU conflict minerals regulation began applying to EU importers. This implementation step turned earlier policy commitments into operational compliance work (such as supply-chain checks and documentation) for covered minerals entering the EU market.
The Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act (UFLPA) was signed into law, strengthening import controls tied to supply-chain labor conditions. It established a “rebuttable presumption” that goods made wholly or partly in China’s Xinjiang region are barred from entry into the U.S. unless importers can meet strict evidentiary requirements.
Norway’s Transparency Act (Åpenhetsloven) entered into force, requiring in-scope companies to carry out due diligence and to provide information to the public about how they address human rights and decent work in their value chains. The law also created a right for people to request information from companies, making transparency more practical and demand-driven.
Germany’s Supply Chain Due Diligence Act (LkSG) came into force, requiring large companies to set up risk management and due diligence procedures for human rights and certain environmental risks in their supply chains. It marked a shift from mainly “reporting what you do” toward legally mandated processes and oversight by a regulator.
The EU’s Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) entered into force, replacing and expanding the earlier NFRD approach. By widening who must report and requiring more standardized sustainability reporting, CSRD increased pressure for traceable, auditable data—often including supply-chain impacts and risks.
The EU approved a directive to delay deadlines for adopting certain sector-specific sustainability reporting standards and standards for some non-EU companies under CSRD. This adjustment reflected implementation challenges and concerns about reporting burden, while keeping the broader transparency framework in place.
The EU adopted the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD), aiming to require large companies to identify, prevent, mitigate, and account for human rights and environmental harms in their operations and value chains. This directive represented a capstone shift in Europe from voluntary standards and disclosure-only laws toward a broader, mandatory due diligence framework.
Germany moved to reduce burdens under its supply-chain law by ending the regulator’s review of companies’ due diligence compliance reports beginning in October 2025, while leaving core due diligence obligations in place. This signaled a late-period recalibration: governments sought to preserve transparency and rights protections while adjusting how compliance is checked and enforced.
Supply Chain Transparency and Ethical Sourcing Laws and Campaigns (2010–2025)