Anita Dorett, Director of the Investor Alliance for Human Rights, warns of the pitfalls of relying on social audits to address state-sponsored forced labour risks.
Given multinationals’ complex global supply chains and trading relationships, the vast majority of today’s goods are sourced and produced far from where they are sold and consumed. For this reason, to meet their responsibilities under the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs), companies must ‘know and show’ where human rights risks may be present at every link in their global supply chains.
To address supply chain risks, companies are expected to disclose all their suppliers and business relationships throughout the entire supply chain, develop stringent supplier codes of conduct, and implement robust monitoring systems to ensure their codes are being enforced on the ground. Third-party social and labour audits and related supplier certifications have long been the go-to method for supply chain monitoring, noting that there are significant shortcomings with these programmes. Where these programmes fail, however, is in geographies where state-imposed forced labour is prevalent. In these cases, even the best-intentioned of such risk-assessment schemes are rendered wholly unverifiable and, therefore, meaningless.
Prohibited practices
Distinct from forced labour imposed by private actors like companies or individuals, state-imposed forced labour is compulsory labour enforced by state or governmental authorities. According to Walk Free’s Global Slavery Index, in 2021, 3.9 million people were forced to work by state authorities.
The International Labour Organization’s (ILO) convention No 105 expressly prohibits state-imposed forced labour. State-imposed forced labour is often implemented as a means of political coercion or ‘re-education’ or as a punishment for expressing dissenting political views; as a method of mobilising labor for economic development; as a means of labour discipline; or as a means of racial, social, ethnic, or religious discrimination. State-imposed forced labour can be found in 17 countries including Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Eritrea, North Korea, and China.
Nowhere is this pernicious form of human rights abuse better illustrated than the Chinese government’s long-term repression and enslavement of people in the Xinjiang Province (Uyghur region). The pervasive use of state-imposed forced labour programmes, enforced through an extensive surveillance system in the Uyghur region, vividly illustrates the impossibility of conducting credible supply chain human rights due diligence where the state controls the outcome.
According to auditors, they are only given limited access to worksites, can only inspect a curated ‘snapshot’ of factory conditions,
