Human Rights Due Diligence in Practice: Why Worker-Driven Approaches Are Essential
- Dec 4, 2025
- 6 min read
Executive Summary
Human rights due diligence (HRDD) is increasingly evaluated as an operating capability, not a policy exercise. Across jurisdictions, companies are expected to demonstrate that their systems for identifying, preventing, and addressing human rights risks function effectively in practice.
This article outlines how HRDD expectations have evolved and what companies are now expected to do differently. In particular, it highlights why worker-driven approaches—including worker voice, accessible grievance mechanisms, and rights awareness—are critical to effective due diligence.
The key takeaway is that audits and policies alone are no longer sufficient. HRDD systems are strongest when they are grounded in direct engagement with rights holders, generate evidence of real-world functioning, and support ongoing prevention rather than one-time compliance.
Human Rights Due Diligence Is Now an Operating Requirement. Are You Ready?
Human rights due diligence (HRDD) is no longer a future requirement or a voluntary best practice. Across jurisdictions, it is increasingly becoming a baseline expectation for doing business in global supply chains.
Driven by mandatory due diligence laws, expanded sustainability reporting requirements, and forced-labor import enforcement, companies are being asked not just whether they have policies in place—but whether they can demonstrate that their systems actually work.
Failure to do so can result in disrupted buyer relationships, legal exposure, reputational damage, and in some cases customs enforcement that prevents goods from entering key markets.
This article is for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. HRDD obligations vary by jurisdiction, sector, and company profile. Companies should consult qualified legal counsel regarding their specific obligations.
What Has Changed—and Why HRDD Matters More Now
Since early HRDD laws came into effect, the landscape has shifted in three important ways:
Mandatory due diligence expectations are expanding, particularly in the EU and other major markets.
Sustainability reporting requirements increasingly depend on credible underlying due diligence systems, not just disclosure.
Forced-labor enforcement has become more operational, placing the burden of proof on companies rather than regulators.
Together, these trends mean HRDD is no longer evaluated as a policy exercise. It is increasingly evaluated as an operating capability.
What Is Human Rights Due Diligence?
Human rights due diligence is a risk-based process through which companies identify, prevent, mitigate, and account for adverse human rights impacts connected to their operations and value chains.
While specific legal requirements vary by jurisdiction, most HRDD expectations are grounded in widely used international standards and converge around several core principles:
proactive risk identification
meaningful engagement with affected stakeholders
prevention and mitigation, not just response
access to remedy
documentation and accountability over time
In practice, HRDD has moved beyond audits and disclosure toward systems that generate reliable, defensible evidence.
Several countries and regions have passed laws over the last few years regulating industries and imports into their country. Laws range from issue specific to disclosure reports to national -level mandatory due diligence and reporting that cover all human rights. The enforcement mechanisms vary from case to case and could result in hefty fines or customs’ seizure of goods.
Here are a few: the UK, US and Australia Modern Slavery Act, and the Dutch Child Labor Due Diligence Act. The California Transparency in Supply Chains Act and the EU Non-Financial Reporting Directive (EU NFRD). Mandatory supply chain human rights due diligence laws recently passed in France, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Norway, Germany, and proposed in Canada, Japan, Spain and the EU.
What HRDD Laws Generally Require
Although requirements differ, most HRDD frameworks—largely informed by the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights—expect companies to be able to demonstrate the following:
Policy and governance
Clear commitments to respect human rights, embedded in procurement and supplier management, with defined accountability.
Risk identification
Ongoing identification of actual and potential human rights risks across operations and supply chains, informed by credible data and effective complaints mechanisms.
Prevention and mitigation
Actions to prevent harm and reduce risk, including supplier engagement and follow-up—not one-off assessments.
Remediation
Processes to address harm and support remedy when violations occur.
Tracking and reporting
Documentation of risks identified, actions taken, and effectiveness over time.
Enforcement mechanisms vary, but expectations around effectiveness are becoming more explicit.
Why Worker-First Design Matters for HRDD
Most workplace and supply chain systems are designed primarily for employers, auditors, or compliance teams, with workers treated as data sources rather than primary users.
However, human rights due diligence is ultimately about protecting rights holders.
Effective due diligence therefore requires engaging directly with those rights holders—not relying solely on proxy indicators, documentation, or management-filtered information.
When workers are able to participate safely and meaningfully, accessibility, trust, and safety become core design requirements rather than optional features. This has a direct impact on HRDD outcomes, because many risks remain invisible unless workers can speak openly and be heard.
Worker-first design helps turn HRDD from a theoretical exercise into a system that functions in practice.
Demonstrating That HRDD Systems Work in Practice
HRDD is increasingly evaluated not on whether systems exist, but on whether they function in reality.
Traditional social audits can play a role, but on their own they are limited. Audits are periodic, often announced, and typically rely on documentation reviews and management-selected interviews. As a result, many risks—especially those affecting vulnerable workers—remain hidden or are identified only after harm has occurred.
Worker voice changes this dynamic because workers experience day-to-day conditions that audits often cannot capture.
Research and field experience show that worker surveys and feedback mechanisms are often more effective than audits alone at identifying risks, particularly those related to treatment, coercion, discrimination, and retaliation.
Worker voice tools are especially important for:
understanding lived realities and daily practices
identifying bad actors even where formal systems exist
revealing gaps between worker experience and management perception
surfacing risks that fall outside audit windows
identifying patterns that point to systemic issues rather than isolated incidents
Real Access to Remedy
Ensuring Grievance Mechanisms Are Known, Trusted, and Used
Effective HRDD depends on grievance mechanisms that work in practice—not just on paper.
Companies should be able to demonstrate that grievance mechanisms are:
known and understood by workers
accessible regardless of literacy, language, or technology constraints
trusted enough that workers feel safe using them
capable of responding and resolving issues in a timely and appropriate way
Rather than simply confirming that a grievance policy exists, effective due diligence assesses whether workers can and do use the mechanism, and whether it leads to meaningful outcomes. This requires speaking to workers at scale.
Informed Rights Holders
Preventing Risk Through Rights Awareness
HRDD is not only about identifying harm—it is also about preventing it.
A recurring driver of risk is lack of clarity around rights and responsibilities. When workers and managers do not understand expectations, harmful practices can persist or go unchallenged.
Companies should ensure that workers (rights holders) and relevant staff receive practical, accessible learning on rights, responsibilities, and grievance processes. In many contexts, this requires training approaches designed for low-literacy and high-risk environments, using visuals, audio, and clear examples rather than legal or technical language.
When people understand both their rights and their responsibilities, risks are less likely to occur—and more likely to be addressed early.
Evidence-Based HRDD, Not Assumed Compliance
The result of these approaches is an HRDD system grounded in evidence, not assumptions.
Rather than relying solely on policies, periodic audits, or supplier self-assessments, companies gain:
worker-informed risk data
insight into whether grievance mechanisms function in practice
documentation of prevention, mitigation, and remediation actions
trend analysis that supports continuous improvement
This type of evidence is increasingly critical when HRDD practices are reviewed by buyers, regulators, investors, or courts.
HRDD Is Not a Project. It’s a Practice.
Human rights due diligence is now evaluated as an operating capability: whether a company can identify risk early, prevent harm, and demonstrate credible action over time.
Audits establish an important baseline, but their effectiveness often declines over time. Once checklist requirements are met, audits tend to reveal less about how systems function day to day. Human rights—and human resources—are not projects that get completed; they are ongoing practices.
Worker surveys and engagement tools are better suited to this reality. They capture how systems function in daily practice, surface blind spots, and help validate or challenge audit findings. Used alongside audits, they support more continuous due diligence and help companies prioritize action—particularly for high-risk or strategic suppliers.
It’s a lot, we know. Don’t worry, Labor Solutions is here to support you.
If you want to understand how HRDD expectations may affect your business, or what an implementable HRDD system looks like in practice, contact us at info@laborsolutions.tech.