1 Introduction

Governments increasingly expect businesses to perform social and environmental due diligence within their operations and supply chains. This report maps 21 legislative measures across 11 jurisdictions to identify areas of commonality and divergence. The analysis focuses on mandatory measures to assist governments in exploring opportunities for international policy co-operation, aiming to minimise complexity and costs for regulators and businesses.

2 Legislative scope

The report categorises legislative measures into three groups: disclosure measures, due diligence conduct measures, and product and market-based measures. These instruments differ in their entity scope, often applying size thresholds based on revenue or employee numbers. Supply chain scope also varies; while all measures address own operations and upstream activities, only 5 of the 11 conduct measures and 1 of the 5 disclosure measures address downstream activities.

Issue scope is broadly grouped into human rights, labour rights, and environmental impacts. Conduct measures typically take a broad approach, defining issues by reference to international treaties, whereas product-based measures focus on specific risks such as forced labour or deforestation.

3 Comparative analysis of due diligence requirements

The measures are mapped against the OECD six-step due diligence framework. For Step 1, 14 of the 21 measures explicitly require responsible business conduct policy commitments. Within the 11 conduct measures, 10 require a due diligence policy and 8 address integration into management systems.

Regarding Step 2, the majority (18 of 21) of measures require entities to undertake a risk assessment. Step 3 requirements for ceasing or mitigating impacts are most explicit in conduct-based measures. Monitoring and tracking (Step 4) are included in 15 of the 21 measures. Reporting (Step 5) is required by 17 of the 21 measures, though levels of detail vary significantly. Remediation (Step 6) is the least integrated aspect, with only 7 of the 21 measures including explicit conduct or disclosure requirements.

4 Key areas of convergence and divergence

Key areas of convergence include shared objectives to prevent adverse impacts and expectations for companies to look beyond their own operations. Most measures allow for a degree of discretion regarding proportionality and focus on significant risks. Governments are encouraged to leverage this convergence by co-ordinating on joint interpretative materials and common terminology.

Divergences are noted in supply chain definitions, prioritisation criteria, and traceability requirements. These differences can force businesses to establish parallel methodologies for risk identification. Conflicting regulatory demands may also lead to uncertainty regarding responsible disengagement from suppliers.

5 Conclusion

This comparative mapping demonstrates that most instruments draw on a common conceptual foundation grounded in international standards. While differences in scope and enforcement models persist, these convergences provide a framework that can be refined as governments develop guidance. As jurisdictions transition to implementation, policy co-operation will be critical to reducing fragmentation and increasing legal certainty.