📕 Make sure your company doesn’t follow the old school legal playbook.
I’ve just finished reading the UK High Court Judge’s view on the Dyson case.
(This is the case brought by migrant workers in Malaysia against Dyson for forced labour and other labour rights violations in Dyson’s largest ‘box-build’ supplier)
It’s clear that the judge is highly frustrated with Dyson.
He is telling Dyson that enough time has been wasted with the jurisdiction challenge (the lawsuit was filed in 2022 and could only start this year due to Dyson contesting jurisdiction in the UK), and that Dyson now needs to recognise the imbalance of power between the company, and the claimants who are poor, vulnerable and illiterate migrant workers in the company’s supply chain.
The judge calls on Dyson to pivot towards constructive engagement with the case.
In short, he is saying: Defensive legal strategies, step aside. ⚖️➡️
It’s time for a human approach. ❤️
He’s right, of course.
The lead claimant, Dhan Kumar Limbu, travelled from Nepal to work for a Dyson supplier. He speaks of extreme pressure and chronic sleep deprivation from working 12 hours a day, seven days a week, every day of the month.
He lived in cramped and unsanitary accommodation, with low pay and his passport retained by his employer.
When the company found out the issues had been raised internationally, he was driven by his manager to the police station, where he was beaten and hit on the soles of his feet with a rubber pipe. 😢
He eventually fled the country, without his passport.
The inequality of arms here could not be starker. ⚖️
From working with companies for years now, I can completely see how Dyson’s response could have happened.
It’s highly likely that Dyson’s human rights and sustainability team advised on an approach that is aligned with today’s expectations of companies.
But it’s also highly likely that they got pushed to the side by legal and senior execs who resorted to what feels comfortable to protect the company:
📕 The old school legal playbook.
This old school playbook is to:
📍 Issue statements saying reported forced labour claims are unsubstantiated, without explaining why
📍 Walk away from supplier relationships when audits uncover severe issues
📍 Sue news outlets for reporting on human rights allegations
📍 Use jurisdiction dispute strategies to prolong lawsuits
Following this old school legal playbook has led to four years of litigation for Dyson, and counting, since the trial is set for next year.
The senior management time, the legal costs, the reputation hits…
All of this could have been prevented by following the 🌟 future-ready legal playbook 🌟
The future-ready legal playbook is:
✅ When a labour rights activist raises allegations of forced labour: recognise that forced labour is a systemic issue that exists in global supply chains. 🌍 The facts may not be precisely as alleged, but this is the opportunity to be open about what the company did find, the challenges it faced, and what it could do to address them.
✅ When internal audits uncover exploitative conditions: lean in. Use leverage with suppliers, and consider: how do we tackle the issues meaningfully, who else needs to be involved, and what outcomes are better for migrant workers?
✅ When a media investigation is published: engage with curiosity. What happened, what can we learn from this, and how do we move forward together? 🧭
✅ When a lawsuit arises: sit down, engage constructively, and explore alternative dispute resolution. 🪑🤝 Bring business and human rights experts into the legal conversations, and make sure that lawyers are up to speed with how the UN Guiding Principles need to shape legal strategies.
Which playbook would your company follow, do you think?
And what can you do now to prepare to be future-ready?
(And for more on the lawsuit and what it means for companies, see my latest newsletter here.)
👇 This is me during my UK swearing-in ceremony 16 years ago at the Law Society – I think I’m reading the old school legal playbook and not agreeing with it. 😆
