Enforcement of labour protections will remain an issue, but there's still a reason to require corporate due diligence on forced labour in supply chains.

We shouldn't hold our breath waiting for developing countries to enforce their own labour laws, so that can't be the answer for stopping forced labour.

Major corporations have demonstrated that they won't always do the right thing voluntarily. “Why would we assume they will?”, asks Hugh Helferty of Queen's School of Business.

Brazil forced companies to clean up their act through binding legislation and a ‘dirty list’. “Why can’t this happen globally?”, asks Brazilian activist Leonardo Sakamoto.

Good legislation is essential, but effective enforcement and corporate investment can be just as important, argues Houtan Homayounpour from the International Labour Organisation.

POLICY DEBATE: Many corporations need exploited labour to remain profitable, a simple truth that soft law will never effectively overcome, argues the UN special rapporteur for slavery.

POLICY DEBATE: Binding legislation against labour abuse in supply chains can't hurt, but we already have plenty of weapons in the fight for decent work, argues Anna de Courcy of the Freedom Fund.

POLICY DEBATE: We have all the evidence we need that corporate self-regulation has failed. Binding regulation is the only way of challenging unbridled corporate power.

POLICY DEBATE: We have legal frameworks aplenty to prevent forced labour in supply chains, what we’re missing is enforcement, argues former Coca-Cola Executive Ed Potter.

Eradicating forced labour and modern slavery from global supply chains requires both business and government effort, argues Lara White of the International Organisation for Migration.

What is the best strategy for combating labour abuses in global supply chains? Should we continue with ‘corporate social responsibility’, or should we favour an alternative of international legal liability and accountability?

POLICY DEBATE: Law is nothing without enforcement, and no better compliance monitor exists than the workers' themselves, argues Cathy Feingold of the AFL-CIO.