January 1st 2012 provided a particularly jubilant New Year's Day celebration for all those campaigning against human trafficking, modern slavery and forced labour. This was the day that California's Transparency in Supply Chains Act, initially approved by then-governor Arnold Schwarzenegger back in September 2010, came into effect.
Hollywood star Julia Ormond says companies should develop systems to rid their supply chains of trafficked or enslaved labour (The Guardian)
Also known as SB 657, the law requires all retailers and manufacturers of a certain size trading in California to publicly disclose their efforts to remove forced labour and trafficking from their supply chains. It applies to any company that does business worth $100 million (£62 million) or more in the Golden State. According to California's Franchise Tax Board, the number of firms affected by the act stands at approximately 3,200.
The law is the first of its kind, and has been widely viewed as a major step forward in combating worker exploitation and improving standards of corporate disclosure. Although some commentators have claimed it does not go far enough, the act has certainly prompted many apparel companies to place their supply chain strategies under renewed scrutiny.
Two common criticisms of the California act are that it is unambitious and lacks teeth. In order to comply with the legislation in its current guise, companies must simply make a statement on their website about what they are doing to eradicate forced labour and human trafficking. As Shawn MacDonald, director of programmes and research at fair labour organisation Verite, recently told the Guardian: "You can even say on your website, 'We don't do anything on this' and then you are in legal compliance." For many campaign groups, the act is also frustratingly light on enforcement - it makes no allowances for penalties in cases of non-compliance.