For a long time, many companies have approached human rights due diligence as a matter of policy, reporting, or reputation. That is no longer enough.
A growing number of legal cases are showing that questions once seen as “soft” are now being tested in much harder ways, through litigation, liability, regulatory scrutiny, and personal accountability. The names differ, Lafarge, Yves Rocher, Dyson, but the direction is the same.
At the centre of these cases are people. Workers facing unsafe conditions, loss of income, restrictions on their rights, or situations of exploitation. Their lived experiences are what bring these cases forward. And increasingly, they are what courts are examining.
The message is not that every company will face the same type of case. It is that expectations are shifting. Courts, claimants, regulators, and other stakeholders are looking more closely at what companies knew, what they did, what they failed to do, and whether their due diligence actually worked in practice.
From policies to proof
What stands out across these developments is that formal commitments are no longer enough on their own. Codes of conduct, standards, audits, and policy statements may still matter, but they do not provide much protection if risks were foreseeable, warning signs were available, or internal systems failed to trigger meaningful action.
In different ways, these cases raise a few questions:
→ Was risk taken seriously early enough?
→ Were subsidiaries, suppliers, intermediaries, or recruiters adequately covered by due diligence?
→ Were governance structures and escalation processes strong enough?
→ Did legal, compliance, procurement, and sustainability functions work together in practice?
→ Was due diligence embedded in real decision-making, or left at the level of policy and framework?
These are no longer theoretical questions. They are increasingly central to how responsibility is assessed.
The business case for acting earlier
For companies, the lesson is not simply “litigation risk is rising”. It is broader than that.
When issues escalate into legal cases, the situation is already serious. Workers have raised concerns, experienced harm, or been affected over time, often without those issues being adequately addressed. By that point, questions are no longer only about risk, but about how companies have responded.
Reactive approaches are expensive. They consume management time, create friction across functions, expose weak governance, and often leave companies responding under pressure and under public scrutiny. Even where cases settle, or where liability is still contested, the cost of getting to that point can be significant.
A more proactive approach is different. It helps companies identify risks and concerns earlier, strengthen internal ownership, and make better decisions in complex and high-risk contexts. It also creates better conditions for engaging with affected stakeholders, addressing issues more effectively, and building trust over time.
In parallel, it puts companies in a stronger position to meet regulatory requirements, including emerging EU frameworks such as the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) and the EU Forced Labour Regulation, which increasingly expect due diligence to be risk-based, practical, and effective.
What this means in practice
In our work, this often comes down to helping companies move from ambition to implementation. That may involve:
→ strengthening risk identification in higher-risk markets, sectors, or sourcing models
→ testing whether current due diligence processes actually capture severe risks
→ improving governance and escalation around complex decisions
→ assessing whether recruitment, sourcing, or supplier practices are aligned with expectations
→ identifying where existing systems create false comfort rather than real insight
At Enact, we support companies in navigating exactly these questions, not only to respond to legal and regulatory developments, but to build approaches that are workable in practice and credible over time.
The takeaway is clear: due diligence is no longer judged on intent, but on outcomes.