This article evaluates how domestic factors shaped transparency legislation on modern slavery in Canada, indicating broader implications for corporate accountability.
Countries, primarily in the Global North, have been implementing transparency and corporate sustainability due diligence laws. These laws seek to increase corporate accountability for various human rights, environmental, and modern slavery offences in global supply chains. Three legislative models have been adopted: 1) Disclosure or Transparency laws; 2) Mandatory Human Rights Due Diligence (MHRDD) laws; and 3) MHRDD laws with civility liability, which is considered best practice. In this article, I evaluate the factors that influenced the adoption of a particular legislative model in various countries and specifically examine what factors influenced the passage of transparency legislation in Canada. I argue that despite international pressure on Canada to enact legislation, it was ultimately features of Canada’s domestic political economy that determined the enactment of a transparency law. These features include Canada’s membership of the Anglosphere, its powerful mining industry, the advocacy of civil society organisations, key parliamentarians, and ruling political party principles.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Jonelle Humphrey (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: