From Criminalisation to Preventive Due Diligence: Reconstructing Labour Law Safeguards against Forced Labour, Migrant Worker Exploitation, and Modern Slavery in Global Supply Chains

Abstract

Forced labour has remained one of the most difficult problems in contemporary labour law. It has not only been found in illegal workplaces or hidden criminal networks. It has also been embedded in ordinary labour relations, recruitment channels, subcontracting systems and cross-border supply chains. The 2021 Global Estimates of Modern Slavery reported that 49.6 million people were living in modern slavery, with 27.6 million people subjected to forced labour. A large part of this exploitation was linked to the private economy, where labour control can be disguised through debt, contract manipulation, withheld wages, excessive overtime and the retention of identity documents. This article examines how labour law safeguards can be reconstructed to prevent forced labour, migrant worker exploitation and modern slavery in global supply chains. A normative and comparative legal approach is used. International labour standards, human rights due diligence instruments, migrant worker protection norms and recent regulatory developments in the European Union are analysed. Particular attention is given to the gap between criminalisation-based protection and preventive labour governance. It is argued that forced labour cannot be effectively addressed where legal protection is activated only after exploitation has already occurred. The article finds that three weaknesses are still visible in many labour protection frameworks. First, recruitment abuse is not always treated as an early legal indicator of forced labour. Second, migrant workers are often protected through fragmented rules that separate labour law, immigration law and anti-trafficking law. Third, corporate responsibility is still too often reduced to voluntary compliance, while forced labour risks usually appear beyond the first layer of employment. Because of this, a preventive model is needed. Such a model should combine fair recruitment regulation, labour inspection, migrant worker safeguards, supply chain due diligence, victim-centred remedies and corporate accountability. The article contributes to labour law scholarship by shifting the discussion from punishment after violation to prevention before exploitation becomes normalised.