Human rights due diligence: how responsible sourcing expectations are evolving

27 October 2026

Human rights due diligence is entering a new phase. What was once driven largely by voluntary commitments and stakeholder expectations is increasingly shaped by “hard law”, trade regulation and geopolitical risk. For companies across the aluminium value chain, identifying risks is no longer enough: they must also be able to show how those risks are being mitigated in practice.

Regulation is raising the stakes

Mandatory human rights due diligence requirements are expanding across several jurisdictions. France’s Duty of Vigilance Law, Germany’s Supply Chain Due Diligence Act and Norway’s Transparency Act are already in place, while the EU Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive is expected to become fully operational in July 2029.

Further developments are emerging in Australia, Thailand, Japan, Korea and the UK. The scope and enforcement mechanisms differ, but the direction is clear: companies are increasingly expected to take reasonable, demonstrable steps to understand and mitigate human rights issues throughout their value chains.

Trade-related actions by governments add another layer of risk. Under the US Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act, goods connected to Xinjiang are presumed to have been produced using forced labour, placing a demanding burden of proof on importers. The EU Forced Labour Regulation is broader rather than region-specific, but it could still result in products being removed, destroyed or banned from the European market.

For aluminium producers and buyers affected by these regulations, knowing where raw materials come from informs sourcing approaches. Adopting a general due diligence framework remains an important foundation, but may not be sufficient where regulation requires a particular outcome.

Geopolitics complicates compliance

International companies can also encounter conflicting legal requirements. While the US, EU and other jurisdictions are demanding greater supply chain transparency and tracing, China has introduced regulations that restrict implementation of these kinds of foreign laws, which are seen to be a trade-related weaponisation of supply chain tools. Businesses may consequently find that one jurisdiction requires an action that another prohibits, creating significant legal and financial exposure.

Human rights risks extend beyond the factory gate

The aluminium sector faces a broad and interconnected set of human rights concerns. These include worker safety, labour rights, contractor recruitment, community consent, land acquisition, resettlement, livelihoods, security practices, environmental health and access to effective grievance mechanisms.

Expectations for businesses are evolving particularly quickly in three areas: workforces and contractors, communities and the environment, and security and civic space. Forced-labour indicators, recruitment chains and contractor oversight require attention alongside occupational safety, working hours, wages and accommodation. At community level, water, pollution, health effects, land access, livelihoods and meaningful engagement are increasingly being recognised as human rights issues.

Evidence should show what changed

An effective business response requires internal collaboration across human rights, procurement, operations, security and community-relations teams. Risk and impact assessments need to remain current and connected to operational controls, rather than being treated as static documents. Records should capture dates, decisions, incidents, actions, responsible owners, follow-up and outcomes.

The most mature organisations go beyond documenting activity. They can show whether training, procedures and controls have reduced risk, prevented harm or improved outcomes for affected people. When problems occur, they provide remedy, learn from the experience and strengthen their systems.

The central message for the aluminium industry is that the next phase of human rights due diligence will increasingly need evidence of effective implementation of policies and systems. Companies need to demonstrate that risks are being actively managed, that controls are delivering results and that workers and communities have credible ways to raise concerns and obtain remedy.

Human Rights in the ASI Performance Standard

In Version 3 of the Performance Standard, Human Rights Due Diligence is covered under criterion 9.1, and Responsible Sourcing under 2.4 and 2.9 (Mergers and Acquisitions). Criterion 9.8 covers Sourcing from Conflict-Affected and High-Risk Areas.

ASI is currently undertaking a major Standards Revision to develop Version 4 of the Performance Standard. The objectives for the Response Sourcing and Due Diligence criteria were to further align the ASI Performance Standard with due diligence expectations from international frameworks such as the OECD Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Business Conduct (RBC) and UN Guiding Principles (UNGPs), reduce duplication and improve usability, and maintain ASI’s alignment with the OECD Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Minerals Supply Chains, to remain a ‘Track A’ Standard under the LME Responsible Sourcing requirements for its listed aluminium brands.

Under the newly proposed structure, the Human Rights Due Diligence criteria will be covered under Section 1 (Governance), and Response Sourcing and Due Diligence is a new separate cross-cutting section.

During the first public consultation, ASI received around 105 comments from around 30 different respondents on the Responsible Sourcing and Due Diligence requirements. Respondents broadly supported OECD alignment but requested clearer guidance on implementation, and for human rights due diligence, more emphasis on outcomes rather than policies.

ASI has reviewed the comments, and the next version of drafts will be further aligned with language from the UNGPs and to emphasise outcomes rather than process. In addition to the proposed minimum responsible sourcing requirements, scrap-specific Leading Practices are being proposed to encourage engagement beyond direct scrap suppliers (traders and/or large aggregators), reaching smaller aggregators, cooperatives and informal waste pickers further upstream. While companies would be encouraged to incorporate scrap-specific ESG criteria into agreements with direct suppliers, engagement further upstream could take the form of partnerships and initiatives that improve working conditions, occupational safety and livelihoods for informal workers. The approach recognises that responsibilities and opportunities for engagement differ across the recycling value chain, rather than prescribing a fixed supply-chain tier.

RELATED TOPICS:

human rights

SHARE THIS ARTICLE