Brand reputation vs real change: How 2025 due‑diligence and ESG talk often hides weak enforcement on forced labour and living wages

More than ever in 2025, brand reputation will be directly linked to environmental, social, and governance (ESG) performance. Companies publish glossy sustainability reports, announce net‑zero timelines, and promise ethical supply chains. Yet behind this wave of ESG talk, enforcement on forced labour and living wages frequently remains shallow or inconsistent. Corporate due diligence laws are now being developed in most areas, yet supervision can end at the first level of suppliers and thus other levels lie in the deep dark. The disjuncture between the brand promise and the actual change is becoming a main challenge of credibility, with regulators, investors and consumers scrutinizing beyond marketing to follow whether the lives of workers are actually becoming better.

The rise of due‑diligence and ESG talk

Mandatory human rights due‑diligence rules in the EU and other markets have pushed companies to map risks and publish more data. Access to capital and market trust is now defined by ESG ratings, shareholder resolutions, and stakeholder pressure.

Most of this action however is policy-oriented and audit oriented as opposed to results. Most companies continue to view due- dilligence as a box-ticking event where they rely on self-reported questionnaires and brief factory visits that are easily bypassed by forced labour in the background or wage theft.

Where enforcement on forced labour falls short

Forced labour risks are highest in complex, multi‑layered supply chains—such as agriculture, textiles, electronics, and mining—where subcontracting and recruitment fees are common. However, rarely do enforcement mechanisms go up to these levels.

Employees can be provided with voluntary contracts under the conditions of the debt bondage, passport seizures or deportation threat. Living wages are often replaced by minimum wages that fail to cover basic needs, especially when overtime and precarious contracts are the norm. Devoid of sufficient sanctions, brands can proclaim zero-tolerance practices but quietly keep using low cost and high risk sourcing practices.

From brand reputation to real change

It takes more, smarter enforcement to bridge the reality and the image of the brand. These involve commitment to living wages, worker based monitoring, existence of clear lists of suppliers and legal responsibility of harms deep into the supply chain. Investors can shift focus from ESG talk to measurable indicators: wage levels, remediation outcomes, and worker representation.

For companies, the strategic choice in 2025 is clear: either use due‑diligence and ESG as genuine tools to eliminate forced labour and raise living wages, or risk reputational damage as stakeholders uncover the difference between claims and reality.