Anti-Slavery International released a two-part factsheet to support companies in addressing State-imposed forced labour, in accordance with international responsible business standards like the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights and the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises on Responsible Business Conduct.
Human Level’s Take:
- State-imposed forced labour occurs when governments compel work for economic, political, or discriminatory reasons, affecting global supply chains in industries like textiles, electronics, and agriculture across multiple countries.
- Due to the State’s involvement, companies face severe challenges in human rights due diligence, as on-the-ground audits are often impossible and leverage over suppliers may be limited. As a result, companies may need to consider disengaging from affected industries to avoid supporting and perpetuating these practices.
- How can human rights due diligence measures help companies confront the challenges posed by State-imposed forced labour?
- Companies can embed policies and contractual obligations to avoid sourcing products linked to state-imposed forced labour. They can also conduct thorough assessments of at-risk value chains, prioritising high-risk inputs. As impacted people often cannot be consulted safely, companies can consider engaging with credible representatives and experts to assess risks.
- Robust verification is often needed beyond supplier self-disclosure or certification schemes, which are often unreliable in this context. Depending on the product, other approaches like isotopic testing could be an option to help trace raw materials to the source.
- In addition, as building leverage is often a challenge in situations of State-imposed forced labour companies may need to disengage from certain industries and business partners, and can exercise leverage to shift sourcing practices of sub-suppliers. Ongoing supply chain monitoring, clear communication of policies and advocacy for stronger regulations are also key.
- Finally, although direct remediation is often difficult, companies can find alternative ways to provide remedy, for example through indirect remediation and non-financial compensation like apologies, restitution, rehabilitation and guarantees of non-repetition.
Some key takeaways:
- What is state-imposed forced labour and what are the implications for business?: State-imposed forced labour, where governments compel individuals to work for economic, political or discriminatory reasons, is a hidden but persistent issue in global supply chains. Commodities and goods made with State-imposed forced labour can enter into global value chains, for example via cotton and textiles, solar panels, electric vehicles, electronics, PVC, gold, seafood, tomatoes and other agricultural products. Walk Free has identified a number of countries and sector with State-imposed forced labour, for example the Turkmen cotton sector; Uyghurs in multiple sectors in China; abuse of compulsory prison labour in Brazil, China, North Korea, Poland, Russia, Turkmenistan and the United States, among other countries; and abuse of military conscription in Egypt, Eritrea, Mali, Mongolia and elsewhere. State-imposed forced labour presents unique challenges, as the State's direct involvement severely limits a company's ability to uphold its human rights responsibilities under the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs). Companies should take into consideration key features of State-imposed forced labour when conducting human rights due diligence. For example, forced labour is always a severe impact due to the nature of the harm. In addition, due diligence on the ground is usually not possible, as workers and investigators may be put at risk, and information is limited — this also means that audits and certifications will be ineffective to provide assurances. In addition, companies may be unable to use leverage with suppliers or to directly remediate individuals. Companies may need to consider disengaging from affected industries in regions where State-imposed forced labour takes place, as continued sourcing can help perpetuate these systems.
- Designing human rights due diligence that considers risks of State-imposed forced labour: Anti-Slavery International provides guidance on taking State-imposed forced labour into consideration when designing human rights due diligence processes. First, companies are expected to embed policies on State-imposed forced labour and to include contractual obligations to avoid sourcing products linked to such labour. Second, when assessing human rights impacts in their own operations or value chain, companies are expected to conduct thorough assessments of at-risk value chains, prioritising high-risk inputs and verifying sourcing to the raw material level through robust methods — noting that supplier self-disclosure or tracing platforms are typically not sufficient. Third, where they lack leverage, companies may need to disengage or terminate a business partner using State-imposed forced labour. For sub-suppliers, companies can influence their direct supplier to shift sourcing. Fourth, companies can continue to monitor their supply chains, even where it isn’t possible to monitor the situation on the ground. Fifth, companies can communicate their own policies on State-imposed forced labour and advocate for public policies to address the issue, for example through due diligence legislation and import bans. Sixth, businesses can engage with affected communities to explore alternatives to direct remediation, including indirect remediation and non-financial compensation like apologies, restitution, rehabilitation and guarantees of non-repetition. Seventh, where direct engagement with affected people can’t be carried out, companies can instead engage with credible representatives and experts.
- State-imposed forced labour and due diligence under EU law: Anti-Slavery International highlights how this issue is showing up in EU laws. In its original text, the EU Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) calls for a risk-based approach to HRDD prioritising the most severe and likely impacts first. It also included the need to terminate business relationships where there is no reasonable expectation for engagement to succeed (for example, in cases of state-imposed forced labour). While the final Directive’s provisions remain uncertain given the ongoing Omnibus process, other laws increasingly require companies to eliminate state-imposed forced labour from their supply chains. For example, the EU Forced Labour Regulation bans the sale, import and export of goods made using forced labour, regardless of where in the supply chain the abuse occurs. Under this law, State enforcement bodies should consider risks of State-imposed forced labour when prioritising investigations, and the European Commission is required to include high-risk sectors and areas for forced labour into a database as a source of information for investigators. In addition, the Commission is expected to provide guidance on due diligence for State-imposed forced labour by May 2026. According to Anti-Slavery International, this could signify that EU authorities are likely to prioritise this issue in enforcing the law.
