News 11 Oct. 2023
Curtis Team Instrumental in Shareholder Approval of a New Multilateral Treaty to Transform Pan-African Housing Finance Institution Shelter Afrique into a Development Bank
Event 23 Aug. 2023
Partner Borzu Sabahi Speaks at the 52nd IDRI Professional Accreditation & Membership Programme
Event 18 Aug. 2023
Partner Borzu Sabahi Speaks at FDI Moot Shenzhen
News 25 Jul. 2023
Partner Eric Gilioli Ranked in Top 10 Influential Energy & Natural Resources Lawyers in Kazakhstan in Business Today
Article 22 Aug. 2023
Fuad Zarbiyev Publishes Article in Journal of International Economic Law
Client Alert 14 Aug. 2023
The EU’s Market in Crypto Assets (MiCA) Regulation: The Highlights
Event 22 Aug. 2023
Partner Dr. Claudia Frutos-Peterson to Speak at Arbitration and ADR Commission of the ICC Mexico
Event 11 Jul. 2023
Partner Elisa Botero Speaks on the Role of the ICC in Investment Disputes
News 15 Aug. 2023
Legal Reader Publishes Article on Dr. Majed Alotaibi’s Arrival as Senior Counsel in Curtis’ Riyadh Office
News 31 Jul. 2023
Curtis Welcomes Senior Saudi Advisor, Dr. Majed Alotaibi, to its Riyadh Office
News 24 Aug. 2023
Curtis Attorneys Quoted in CoinDesk on FTX Founder Sam Bankman-Fried’s Strategy Ahead of His Criminal Trial
News 06 Mar. 2023
Russia Sanctions at the First Anniversary: An Overview of Current Sanctions in the US, UK, and EU and How Global Companies Can Navigate Evolving and Conflicting Sanctions Regimes
Client Alert 30 Aug. 2022
The EU Adopts the “Maintenance and Alignment” Sanctions Package
Client Alert 24 Jun. 2021
Update on Virtual Notarization (Executive Order 202.7) During the COVID-19 (Coronavirus) Pandemic (Updated: June 24, 2021) — U.S. Insight
Update on Virtual Witnessing (New York Executive Order 202.14) During The COVID-19 (Coronavirus) Pandemic (Updated: June 24, 2021) — U.S. Insight
Client Alert 01 Mar. 2021
The alert is available for download with the bibliography in English, Italian and Spanish.
What is Modern Slavery?
The term “slavery” inevitably takes us back to past centuries and it seems unthinkable that today, in the year 2021, we still have to add this topic into governmental and companies’ agendas. “Modern slavery” is the severe exploitation of other people for personal or commercial gain, which can come in several forms, such as human trafficking, forced labor, debt bondage, descent-based slavery, forced marriage and the use of child labor (Anti-slavery). This matter does not differentiate between industries and regions, and sometimes becomes an ingredient in the clothes we wear and even the food we eat.
The International Labor Organization (ILO) and Walk Free Foundation estimate that around 40 million people are currently involved in some form of modern slavery globally, where 25 million are in forced labor and 15 million in forced marriage, with women and girls accounting for 71 percent of all cases of modern slavery (ILO, 2017). This is nothing more than an estimation since, as Stop The Traffik points out, the hidden and illegal nature of human trafficking makes gathering statistics difficult (Traffik).
Corporations may unwittingly act as a catalyst and drive up the demand for forced labor. To stop this race to the bottom, there is an urgent need for more corporate awareness regarding supply chains and transnational legislation that sets basic standards for all businesses, as established by the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGP) and the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises (Anti-Slavery, 2020).
Out of Sight, Out of Mind
According to the UNGP, States have a duty to protect against human rights abuses, and corporations have a responsibility to respect human rights by taking steps to prevent abuses and to remedy infringements (Rights, 2011). Despite the good intentions of these guidelines, extra-territorial legislation is imperative to uphold human rights principles.
Leaders of the G20 and G7, the Human Rights Council and the Global Call to Action, inter alia, have developed initiatives to fight against this issue. However, whether these or other accords are effective will be “largely based on whether any introduced domestic legislation or international treaty includes mandatory due diligence and/or penalties for non-compliance. ‘The presence of such measures is likely to result in more concerted effort, whereas the lack of such measures is likely to see a more limited action response’” (IBA, 2019).
And therein lies the rub. Since the California Transparency in Supply Chains Act of 2010 – the first to combat forced labor and human trafficking through corporate supply chain disclosure requirements – many other jurisdictions have strengthened their regulations on compulsory transparency obligations. Namely, the British Parliament enacted the UK Modern Slavery Act, which requires all commercial organizations trading in the UK with a turnover of £36 million or more to publish an annual statement on action to eliminate slavery from supply chains. The US federal government adopted the US Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act, which prohibits companies from importing goods manufactured by forced labor into the US and, more recently, the Australian Federal and New South Wales (NSW) Modern Slavery Acts required companies to publish an annual statement on actions to address modern slavery in their businesses and supply chains (Anti-Slavery, 2020).
These have represented a huge step into a new era, yet the lacking of “teeth” is evident. In France, for example, a 2017 law obliged global companies to establish a ‘Vigilance Plan’ aimed at preventing serious violations to human rights and fundamental freedoms, among others. However, the penalty for non-compliance contained in the original draft (fines of up to €30 million) was removed. The mentioned UK Act “contains no legal requirements on what needs to be included in a statement and no penalties or enforcement action for organizations that produce very brief statements and/or do little within their organizations to combat slavery” (IBA, 2019).
As for the European Union, in April 2020, the European Commissioner for Justice announced that the EU will introduce in 2021 legislation on mandatory sustainable due diligence for companies, as part of the Commission’s 2021 action plan and the European Green Deal. In October 2020 the Commission launched public consultation on sustainable corporate governance, which closed on February 8, 2021. The Commissioner promised that the new law would require companies to carry out checks on their supply chains and look at whether their activities may be harming human rights, in order to identify, prevent, mitigate and account for human rights abuses and environmental damage linked to corporate operations, subsidiaries or value chains. The companies will have to publicly report on the risks identified and on what they have done to deal with them, demonstrating to investors, consumers and local communities that they are committed to responsible and sustainable business (Centre, 2020).
However, this new trend toward mandatory reporting and non-financial disclosure is not without its criticism and the risk of greenwashing is just around the corner (Amaro, 2020).
Global Solutions for a Cross-cutting Problem
A. Transparency and certification marks
Even though there are some challenges to transparency, namely, added costs and lack of strong legal enforcement mechanisms (see above), consumers are crying out for it and companies across industries should listen. Here are the main reasons:
B. Internal Codes
As a response to consumer demand, companies have implemented codes of conduct establishing labor standards for their international suppliers. However, the key issue here is to put this self-regulation into practice since it tends to remain mere words. “Sweatshops are prohibited in virtually every code of conduct, yet they still exist” (Gehman, 2016).
The Out-of-Style Fashion Industry
How come a beautifully hand-embroidered shirt cost less than $10? Who is sewing customers’ clothes? Where? … The fashion industry has an “enormous influence on society and the environment” (Brewer, 2019), and consumers are starting to ask questions. Companies such as Benetton, Vivienne Westwood and Stella McCartney are “well-known champions” of the promotion of social issues and sustainability (Brewer, 2019). However, they are the exception in an industry that is substantially detrimental not only on the environment, but also on society. Indeed, “[s]lavery in the fashion world can appear in a variety of forms from harvesting the cotton for a t-shirt … [to] modelling the final product. The difference between slavery and extremely exploitative labour can be vague and the fashion industry walks a fine line” (Clay, 2021).
Fashion brands generally do not have full control over their supply chains, making it more difficult to tackle slavery and other labor issues. Yet, it is imperative that they start investing more time and money in these issues. A company’s brand is one of its most valuable assets, and labor violations directly threaten brand value. World-renowned apparel brands have experienced this firsthand. In 1991, Levi Strauss & Co. discovered that some of its Bangladeshi garment factories were engaging in child labor practices. Instead of terminating its contract with the factory or firing all the underage workers, the company acknowledged that particular society’s reality (a child would normally support an entire family on his or her wages) and developed a plan by which, among other things, “factories would have to pay currently employed children their salary and benefits while the children attended school, and agreeing to offer them full-time employment upon their reaching a legal working age” (Gehman, 2016). Levi’s brand strengthened and increased in value, while receiving praise for implementing this empathic solution. On the other hand, Gap, Inc. did not have such a good outcome since it was a third party and not the company who discovered the irregularities. In 2007, a British newspaper reported child labor in a Delhi sweatshop. To enhance its reputation, Gap announced a remedial plan as well as its commitment to eliminating child labor in the production of its clothing; nonetheless, in spite of its efforts, the scandal damaged the brand’s reputation and value. Moreover, years later the same newspaper discovered more sweatshops, which led to the birth of a “Human Rights Policy” within the Company. “The Institute for Global Labor and Human Rights reported in 2013 that Gap was selling clothing manufactured in a Bangladeshi sweatshop” (Gehman, 2016).
Complex supply chains, migrant workers, sub-suppliers and a greater need to cut costs are some of the high-risk factors that corporate leaders need to take into account when creating their business strategies. Companies around the globe are aware of the global dimensions of modern slavery and should intensify their efforts to tackle this issue. Now more than ever, companies should have experts devoted to the analysis and control of their supply chains as well as elite legal teams that understand the needs of their clients, understand the industry, and are constantly updated with respect to the current applicable regulations. Legal advice and compliance assistance from expert legal counsel can help strengthen the brand, reduce litigation and regulatory risk, and maximize the value for both the client and the client’s customers.
Attorney advertising. The material contained in this Client Alert is only a general review of the subjects covered and does not constitute legal advice. No legal or business decision should be based on its contents.
Daniela Della Rosa
Jason D. Wright
PARTNER, ECONOMIC SANCTIONS CHAIR, NATIONAL SECURITY LAW CHAIR
+39 02 7623 2001
+54 11 5196 8300
+41 22 718 3500
+1 212 696 6000
Article 30 Nov. 2023
Evaluation of Shares and Conventional Withdrawal of the Shareholder: A New Direction
News 29 Nov. 2023
Partner Dr. Alexandra G. Maier Wins the 2024 Lexology Client Choice Award for the Mining Experts Category
Article 21 Nov. 2023
Virtual Try-on: A New Way of Shopping