International Insight: Modern Slavery: 2021, the new XVIII Century
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
CLIENT ALERT 24 FEBRUARY 2021 CLIENT ALERT MARCH 1, 2021 International Insight: Modern Slavery: 2021, the new XVIII Century 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. 1 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).
1 More information is available at the following link: https://www.business-humanrights.org/en/latest-
news/eu-commissioner-for-justice-commits-to-legislation-on-mandatory-due-diligence-for-companies/
-2-However, this new trend toward mandatory reporting and non-financial disclosure is
not without its criticism 2 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:
1. Stronger brand. Transparency improves brand recognition and also
“incentivizes companies to clean up their supply chains” (Gehman, 2016),
making their brands’ trademarks stronger. Increased positive brand
recognition among consumers can be achieved by using certification
marks on the labeling of their products. In the fashion industry, FAIR
TRADE CERTIFIED® and GOODWEAVE® are the main ones. “The use
of certification marks … to certify the conditions under which the product
was made would improve the lives and communities of factory workers,
and provide transparency to consumers” (Gehman, 2016). Transparency
also demonstrates corporate social responsibility which can allow
“companies to avoid burdensome government oversight” (Gehman,
2016).
2. Reduced litigation risk and better conditions for workers. Companies are
becoming more aware of what is happening in their supply chains, which
reduces litigation risks and the attendant costs and reputational damage to
the brand. A natural consequence is the improvement in the working
conditions of the workers.
3. Satisfied customers. Customers want good quality products at the best
possible price, but they also want to feel good about the product they
purchase – and transparency helps customers feel satisfied.
2 “Some believe supply chain transparency laws do not constitute any real change from the prevailing
corporate-driven model for CSR, while others oppose increased regulation and oversight as
unnecessary state intervention, believing that industry led efforts have the best chance of success. In
reality, it is a combination of corporate leadership and regulation in this area which will help ensure all
market participants rise to acceptable standards.” Chris Burkett, What are multinationals doing to
champion rights of millions trapped in modern-day slavery?, The Guardian, available at
https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2015/feb/20/trafficking-labour-corporations-
compliance-human-rights.
-3-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
-4-reported in 2013 that Gap was selling clothing manufactured in a Bangladeshi
sweatshop” (Gehman, 2016).
Conclusion
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.
Bibliography
Amaro, S. (2020). Unregulated ‘greenwashing’? ESG investing is under the microscope
as the money rolls in. Available at CNBC:
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/10/14/esg-investing-meaning-is-under-the-
microscope-as-the-money-rolls-in.html
Anti-Slavery (2020). A call for European Union legislation on mandatory human rights
and environmental due diligence, to prevent forced and child labour in global
supply chains. Available at:
https://www.google.it/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&
uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwiluLj05N3uAhWK3OAKHQy7Cq4QFjAAegQIAxAC&url=
https%3A%2F%2Fwww.antislavery.org%2Feu-
legislation%2F&usg=AOvVaw1PeJRw93CRIHKIw1gBe2ox
Anti-slavery (s.d.). What is modern slavery? Available at:
https://www.antislavery.org/slavery-today/modern-slavery/
Brewer, M. K. (2019). Slow fashion in fast fashion world: Promoting sustainability and
responsibility. Laws, 8(4), 1-9.
Centre, B. (2020). EU Commissioner for Justice commits to legislation on mandatory
due diligence for companies. Available at: https://www.business-
humanrights.org/en/latest-news/eu-commissioner-for-justice-commits-to-
legislation-on-mandatory-due-diligence-for-companies/
-5-Clay, A. (2021). Modern Day Slavery in the Fashion Industry. Available at:
https://thefashionglobe.com/modern-day-slavery-in-the-fashion-
industry#:~:text=Slavery%20in%20the%20fashion%20world,industry%20walks
%20a%20fine%20line
Gauer Bermudez, L. (2020). Modern Slavery Research Methods: Enabling Data-Driven
Decisions. Available at: https://www.cfr.org/blog/modern-slavery-research-
methods-enabling-data-driven-decisions
Gehman, L. (2016). Achieving transparency: Use of certification marks to clean up the
fashion industry’s supply chains. Drexel Law Review, 9(1), 161-192.
Global Slavery Index, W. F. (s.d.). Global Slavery Index. Available at:
https://www.globalslaveryindex.org/
IBA (2019). Tacking Modern Slavery. Available at:
https://www.ibanet.org/Article/NewDetail.aspx?ArticleUid=bb90ad4e-a017-
4285-b6ed-cdb0fcea9641
ILO (2017). Global Estimates of Modern Slavery. Available at:
https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/@dgreports/@dcomm/documents/
publication/wcms_575479.pdf
Rights, U. N. (2011). Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. Available at:
https://www.ohchr.org/documents/publications/guidingprinciplesbusinesshr_e
n.pdf
Traffik, S. T. (s.d.). Scale of the issue. Available at:
https://www.stopthetraffik.org/about-human-trafficking/the-scale-of-human-
trafficking /
About Curtis
Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle LLP is a leading international law firm.
Headquartered in New York, Curtis has 17 offices in the United States, Latin America,
Europe, the Middle East and Asia. Curtis represents a wide range of clients, including
multinational corporations and financial institutions, governments and state-owned
companies, money managers, sovereign wealth funds, family-owned businesses,
individuals and entrepreneurs.
For more information about Curtis, please visit www.curtis.com.
-6-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.
Please feel free to contact any of the persons listed below if you have any
questions on this important development:
Daniela Della Rosa María H. De La Peña
Partner Associate
ddellarosa@curtis.com mdelapena@curtis.com
Milan: +39 02 7623 2057 Buenos Aires: +54 11 5196
8300
Nicoleta Timofti Jason Wright
Partner Partner
ntimofti@curtis.com jwright@curtis.com
Geneva: +41 22 718 3505 New York: +1 212 696 8833
-7-You can also read
