H U M A N
R I G H T S
W A T C H

HUMAN RIGHTS IN SUPPLY CHAINSA Call for a Binding Global Standard on Due DiligenceCopyright © 2016 Human Rights Watch
All rights reserved.
Printed in the United States of America
ISBN: 978-1-6231-33498
Cover design by Rafael Jimenez.
Human Rights Watch defends the rights of people worldwide. We scrupulously investigate abuses, expose thefacts widely, and pressure those with power to respect rights and secure justice. Human Rights Watch is anindependent, international organization that works as part of a vibrant movement to uphold human dignity andadvance the cause of human rights for all.
Human Rights Watch is an international organization with staff in more than 40 countries, and offices inAmsterdam, Beirut, Berlin, Brussels, Chicago, Geneva, Goma, Johannesburg, London, Los Angeles, Moscow,
Nairobi, New York, Paris, San Francisco, Sydney, Tokyo, Toronto, Tunis, Washington DC, and Zurich.
For more information, please visit our website: http://www.hrw.org

HUMAN RIGHTS IN SUPPLY CHAINSA Call for a Binding Global Standard on Due Diligence
INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................2
RECOMMENDATIONS ..............................................................................................................4
To Governments, Employers, and Workers at the International Labour Conference........................................4

HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS IN THE CONTEXT OF GLOBAL SUPPLY CHAINS..............................5
Labor rights violations..............................................................................................................................5
Child Labor ..............................................................................................................................................5
Environmental damage and violations of the right to health........................................................................7
Violations of the rights related to land, food, and water..............................................................................7
Violations of International Humanitarian Law ............................................................................................7

WHY A BINDING GLOBAL STANDARD ON HUMAN RIGHTS DUE DILIGENCE IS NEEDED:COMPANIES’ LACK OF ADEQUATE RIGHTS SAFEGUARDS IN SUPPLY CHAINS ...........................10
Lack of state action: Governments do not regulate business enough..........................................................10
The role of the ILO in setting binding standards in global supply chains .....................................................11
A voluntary standard on human rights due diligence:
The United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights ......................................................11
Companies’ Lack of Adequate Human Rights Safeguards in Supply Chains .................................................11
Weak human rights policy commitments and action.......................................................................................11
Insufficient assessment and monitoring of risks of human rights abuses........................................................12
Weaknesses in preventing and mitigating human rights abuse ......................................................................13
Insufficient third-party auditing for human rights issues................................................................................13
Lack of adequate external communication and public reporting......................................................................15
Insufficient remediation ................................................................................................................................16

MAY 2016

INTRODUCTION
In our globalized economy, businesses
across all sectors increasingly source
all manners of goods and services
from complex chains of suppliers that
often span multiple countries withradically different legal, regulatory,
and human rights practices. According
to the International Labour
Organization (ILO), more than 450
million people work in supply chainrelated jobs. While complex global
supply chains can offer important
opportunities for economic and social
development, they often present
serious human rights risks that many
companies have failed to mitigate andrespond to effectively.
Individual companies’ global supply chains often involve
large numbers of suppliers or subcontractors, including
some who are part of the informal sector. The people mostaffected by human rights abuses in a company’s supply
chain often belong to groups who have no realistic opportunities to call attention to these problems themselves, or
secure a remedy, such as women workers, migrant workers,
child laborers, or residents of rural or poor urban areas.
International norms, such as the United Nations Guiding
Principles on Business and Human Rights, recognize thatcompanies should undertake “human rights due diligence”
measures to ensure their operations respect human rights
and do not contribute to human rights abuses. Human rights
due diligence includes steps to assess actual and potential
human rights risks, take effective measures to mitigate
those risks, and act to end abuses and ensure remedy for
any that occur in spite of those efforts. Companies should
also be fully transparent about these efforts.

Elena G., a 16-year-old girl, stands in a tobacco field in Lenoir
County, North Carolina, wearing her work clothes. She lives in a
mobile home with her family. Since she turned 12, she has spent
her school summer vacations working as a hired laborer on
tobacco farms in several nearby counties. “I don’t feel any
different in the fields than when I was 12,” she said. “I [still] getheadaches and … my stomach hurts. And like I feel nauseous…. I
just feel like my stomach is like rumbling around. I feel like I’m
gonna throw up.” These symptoms are consistent with acutenicotine poisoning, an occupational illness specific to tobacco
farming that occurs when workers absorb nicotine through theirskin while having contact with tobacco plants.

But the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human
Rights and other international norms for companies are notlegally binding. Companies can and sometimes do ignore
them, or take them up half-heartedly and ineffectively. Many

© 2015 Benedict Evans/Human Rights Watch

2

HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH

MAY 2016

3

HUMAN RIGHTS IN SUPPLY CHAINS: A CALL FOR A BINDING GLOBAL STANDARD ON DUE DILIGENCE

companies have inadequate or no human rights due
diligence measures in place, and their actions cause orcontribute to human rights abuses. For more than two
decades, in every region of the world, Human Rights Watch
has documented human rights abuses in the context ofglobal supply chains in agriculture, the garment andfootwear industry, mining, construction, and other sectors.
The 2016 International Labour Conference, a global summitof governments, employers, and trade unions on labor
issues, presents a unique opportunity to bring about
fundamental change. For the first time, the International
Labour Conference will focus on decent work in global
supply chains. Governments have the primary responsibility
to protect human rights, including of people working in
global supply chains, but have often failed to oversee or

regulate the human rights practices of companies domiciledon their soil. In the absence of legally binding standards,
ensuring that all companies take their human rights due
diligence responsibilities seriously becomes extremely
difficult. Voluntary standards, while valuable, are notenough.
Human Rights Watch urges governments, employers, andtrade unions attending the International Labour Conference
to seize the opportunity to begin the process for the
adoption of a new, international, legally binding standard
that obliges governments to require businesses to conduct
human rights due diligence in global supply chains.

RECOMMENDATIONSTo Governments, Employers, and Workers at the International Labour Conference•

At the 2016 International Labour Conference, decide to initiate the process for a new, international,
legally binding standard that obliges governments to require businesses to conduct human rights
due diligence across the entirety of their global supply chains. Such due diligence should include,
at a minimum, the following elements:— Adoption and implementation of a clear policy commitment to respect human rights, embeddedin all relevant business functions;— Identification and assessment of actual and potential adverse human rights impacts;— Prevention and mitigation of adverse human rights impacts;— Verification of whether adverse human rights impacts are addressed;— External communication of how adverse human rights impacts are being addressed; and— Effective processes designed to ensure that adversely affected people are able to secure
remediation of any adverse human rights impacts a business has caused or contributed to.

4

HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH

HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS IN
THE CONTEXT
OF GLOBAL SUPPLY CHAINS
For more than two decades, Human Rights Watch has
documented human rights abuses in the context of global
supply chains. We have interviewed thousands of workers,
employers, government officials, and other affectedindividuals in a variety of sectors in every region of theworld. Below are a few select examples that illustrate themost pervasive human rights problems we have found in the
supply chains of many companies across sectors incountries around the world.

Labor rights violations
Around the world, millions of people work in global supply
chains—for example, in factories producing branded
apparel and footwear for consumers worldwide, on farms
growing tobacco purchased by cigarette manufacturers, or insmall-scale mines digging gold that is destined for the
global market. Too many of these workers endure abusessuch as poor working conditions, including minimum wage
violations; forced overtime; child labor; sexual harassment,
exposure to toxic substances and other extreme occupational hazards; and retaliation against workers who attempt
to organize. Workers facing these abuses often lack accessto complaints mechanisms, whistle blower protections, orlegal recourse.
Under international law, governments have an obligation toprotect labor rights, including the right to protest and form
unions—but many fail to do so. Globally, an estimated 21
million people are victims of forced labor.1
The April 2013 Rana Plaza disaster in Bangladesh put the
spotlight on poor working conditions and labor rights
abuses in factories producing for global apparel andfootwear brands. The eight-story Rana Plaza building was
located outside Bangladesh’s capital, Dhaka, and housed
garment factories that employed over 5,000 workers. The
building’s catastrophic collapse killed over 1,100 workers
and injured over 2,000. In the wake of the disaster, major
apparel brands launched new initiatives to protect thesafety of workers in their supply chains. Three years on,
Bangladesh has seen concrete improvements on fire andbuilding safety, but apparel and footwear supply chains arestill plagued by serious human rights problems. For
example, Human Rights Watch has documented how many
apparel workers in Bangladesh and Cambodia experience
forced overtime, pregnancy-based discrimination, andMAY 2016

denial of paid maternity leave. Anti-union abuses arecommon. Workers attempting to organize in both countries
have been threatened, harassed, and dismissed from theirjobs in retaliation.2
Labor rights violations are also rife in Qatar, the United ArabEmirates, and other Gulf States, where construction workers
have suffered serious abuse in the context of supply chainsin large-scale construction and engineering projects. These
low-paid migrant workers face hazardous, and sometimes
deadly, working conditions, and are often bound to abusive
employers through the kafala (sponsorship) system.
Passport confiscation is systematic and many workers arrivewith significant debts on account of extortionate recruitment
fees, which can take several years to repay. Migrant workers
are unable to form or join trade unions, and there is
generally little or no possibility of judicial redress for abuse.
This combination of control mechanisms can lead all too
easily to trafficking and forced labor.3

Child Labor
Child labor is still a serious problem in the global economy.
Over 168 million children are involved in child labor globally,
and 85 million of them are engaged in hazardous work thatputs their health or safety at risk.4 Many child laborers
endure physical and psychological abuse, exploitation, andtrafficking. In addition, many are denied educational
opportunities and are therefore more likely to end up
trapped in poverty.5 Companies may contribute to andbenefit from child labor in their supply chains, for example
when children harvest export crops, mine precious minerals,
process leather, and sew apparel. Under international law,
the worst forms of child labor are prohibited, but many
governments have failed to take effective steps to end it.
Many children suffer pain, sickness, and injury, and, insome cases, even death from the dangerous jobs they do.
Globally, most child laborers work in agriculture for local or
global markets. Child labor in agriculture is hazardous whenchildren handle toxic pesticides or other harmful
substances, work with sharp tools or heavy machinery, orare exposed to extreme heat. For example, Human Rights
Watch found that Palestinian children grow and harvest
crops in Israeli agricultural settlements in the West Bank inconditions that are hazardous due to pesticides, dangerous
tools, and extreme heat. A substantial amount of thisproduce is exported abroad, including to Europe and theUnited States.6
One particularly harmful agricultural crop for children is
tobacco. Children who come into contact with tobacco
plants risk suffering acute nicotine poisoning. Human Rights

5

HUMAN RIGHTS IN SUPPLY CHAINS: A CALL FOR A BINDING GLOBAL STANDARD ON DUE DILIGENCE

EXAMPLE OF A SUPPLLY CHAIN FROM GHANA’SS ARTISANAL AND
SMALL-SCALE MINES
Refinerie
e sell to banks, jew
es
ewe
wellr
l y businesses s,thhe elehe ronicect
ics indu
istry oorr othth
her businesses.
hhe

5 Refine
efinerers
erbuy
uyy frrom
expor
portte
ers.
er
s

4 Ex
xpo
orters (e
or
(e.g.
((e.
e in
nA
Acccra)buy froomm tradaderderss..

3

2

1

Traders (e.g. in miningn g to
ning
ow
wns)
w
n
buy from local Ghanaaiiaann tradera s.

Local Ghanaian traders buy gold aat or near the mines.

Artisanal and small-scale mineers produce gold.

Watch has documented hazardous child labor in tobacco
farming in the United States and Indonesia, interviewing
many children who reported symptoms consistent withacute nicotine poisoning, such as nausea, vomiting,headaches, and dizziness. This tobacco enters the supply
chains of major cigarette manufacturers.7
Another highly hazardous form of child labor is mining. An
estimated one million children work globally in artisanalmines that generally rely on simple machinery and a large
workforce. Approximately 15 percent of the world’s gold

6

originates from artisanal mines. Many children process goldwith mercury, a highly toxic substance that causes brain
damage and other lifelong health conditions. Child miners
also risk their lives when working in unstable pits thatfrequently collapse. Human Rights Watch has documented
hazardous child labor, including the deaths of children
working underground, in artisanal gold mining in Ghana,
Mali, Tanzania, and the Philippines. Much of the gold
produced in these settings finds its way onto the international market.8

HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH

Environmental damage and violations of the rightto healthViolations of the rights related to land, food,and water

Through their global supply chains, many businesses risk
contributing to the more than 12 million deaths that are
attributable to unhealthy environments each year.9
International norms and many domestic legal frameworks
set out government obligations to protect the right toenvironmental health, but these are often ignored orinadequately enforced.

Communities have suffered human rights abuses whencompanies acquire land for large-scale mining,agribusiness, or other commercial enterprises linked to
global supply chains. The rights of whole communities canbe at risk in the context of large-scale land deals, withwomen often facing distinctive and additional risks.

For example, in the Hazaribagh neighborhood of
Bangladesh’s capital Dhaka, around 150 tanneries—many ofthem producing leather as raw materials for the products of
big name brands— expose workers and local residents tountreated tannery effluent that contains chromium, sulphur,ammonium, and other chemicals that cause serious healthproblems.10 Government officials, tannery association
representatives, trade union officials, and staff ofnongovernmental organizations all told Human Rights
Watch that no Hazaribagh tannery has an effluent treatment
plant to treat its waste. Tannery workers described anddisplayed a range of health conditions includingprematurely aged, discolored, itchy, peeling, acid-burned,
and rash-covered skin; fingers corroded to stumps; aches,dizziness, and nausea; and disfigured or amputated limbs.
The output of Hazaribagh’s tanneries makes up around 90
percent of Bangladesh’s total leather production, most ofwhich is for export.11
Many mining operations have also caused ill-health andenvironmental damage. For example, in 2011, Human Rights
Watch looked at how the Porgera mine (of Barrick Gold, a
Canadian global mining company) in Papua New Guinea wasdumping 14,000 tons of liquid mining waste daily into a
nearby river, potentially causing environmental damage andill-health to downstream communities.12 Similarly, Human
Rights Watch found that small- and medium-scale ironmines in India had destroyed or contaminated water sourcesthat residents depended on for drinking water and irrigationin two states. Indian legal and regulatory frameworks meant
to prevent such harms were hobbled by weak institutional
capacity and a basic lack of political will to implement
regulations. A large proportion of iron ore mined in India isdestined for the international market.13 Artisanal and smallscale gold miners in many countries use mercury to process
gold, emitting more than 700 tons of this toxic metal
annually, and causing mercury poisoning in many smallscale miners.14

MAY 2016

Under international law, the rights to water, food, andhousing are protected. Governments are obligated to takesteps to progressively realize full access to these rights overtime. Yet, when local communities have been resettled tomake way for commercial enterprises, their access to waterand their ability to grow their own food has sometimes been
impeded, with particularly severe impacts on women. For
example, when communities were resettled to make way forlarge-scale coal mining operations in Mozambique, they
were pushed into unacceptable new living situations that
led to violations of their rights to water and to food.15
Indigenous communities are in a particularly vulnerable
situation in the face of large commercial land acquisitions
because their culture and livelihood is tied to their land.
Under international law, governments or companies seeking
to work on land where indigenous peoples live often have a
responsibility to seek their free, prior, and informed consent
before moving forward. But this right has been widelydisrespected. Human Rights Watch found that mining
companies in Uganda, for example, have failed to secure
free, prior, and informed consent from indigenous
communities before they started exploration; similarly, thegovernment of Ethiopia has cleared land for the purposes ofexport-oriented commercial agriculture without seeking
free, prior, and informed consent from indigenous
peoples.16

Violations of International
Humanitarian Law
Companies have caused, contributed, or been directly
linked to violations of international humanitarian law (alsoknown as the laws of war) in situations of armed conflict or
military occupation.
For example, during the height of the armed conflict in the
Democratic Republic of Congo, AngloGold Ashanti—aleading gold mining company—established relations with
the Nationalist and Integrationist Front, an armed groupresponsible for serious human rights abuses including war
crimes and crimes against humanity. In return for the armed
group’s assurances of security for its operations and staff,

7

HUMAN RIGHTS IN SUPPLY CHAINS: A CALL FOR A BINDING GLOBAL STANDARD ON DUE DILIGENCE

AngloGold Ashanti provided logistical and financial support
to the armed group and its leaders. In this way, the company
may have contributed to serious human rights abuses
carried out by that armed group.17
Another example is the role of businesses with operations
linked to Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank.
These businesses contribute to Israel’s violations of international humanitarian law and human rights abuses that
dispossess and discriminate against Palestinians. In
particular, they facilitate the presence and growth ofsettlements and contribute to Israel’s unlawful confiscationof Palestinian land and other resources. They also benefit
from abusive government policies that discriminate against
Palestinians by virtually barring Palestinian economic andresidential development in 60 percent of the West Bank.18

A 13-year-old boy digs for gold ore at a small-scale mine in
Mbeya Region, Tanzania. “I was digging with my colleague,” hesaid. “I entered into a short pit. When I was digging he told me
to come out, and when I was about to come out, the shaft
collapsed on me, reaching the level of my chest … they started
rescuing me by digging the pit and sent me to Chunya hospital.”
The accident knocked the boy unconscious and caused internal
injuries. He remained in the hospital for about a week and stilloccasionally feels pain in his waist when he sits. After theaccident, he was scared of returning to the pits, but he felt he
had no choice, explaining: “Whenever my aunt travels is when I
go, because I need something to sustain myself.” Companies
trading in gold have a responsibility to ensure that they do notcause or contribute to child labor.
© 2013 Justin Purefoy/Human Rights Watch

8

HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH

MAY 2016

9

HUMAN RIGHTS IN SUPPLY CHAINS: A CALL FOR A BINDING GLOBAL STANDARD ON DUE DILIGENCE

WHY A BINDING GLOBALSTANDARD ON HUMAN RIGHTSDUE DILIGENCE IS NEEDED:COMPANIES’ LACK OF ADEQUATERIGHTS SAFEGUARDS IN SUPPLYCHAINS
Lack of state action: Governments do not
regulate business enoughThe primary responsibility for upholding human rights lies
with governments. In order to protect human rights,
governments have a duty to effectively regulate businessactivity and to put in place and enforce robust labor laws, inline with International Labour Organization (ILO) standards.
In practice, Human Rights Watch research has found thatloopholes in labor law, weak labor inspections, and poor
enforcement often undermine labor rights and other humanrights.
Governments also should oversee and regulate businesshuman rights practices domestically and abroad. While
governments do generally regulate company behavior at thedomestic level, they do so with varying degrees ofseriousness and effectiveness. And governments haveconsistently failed to oversee or regulate the extraterritorialhuman rights practices of companies domiciled on their soil.
In the absence of legally binding standards, ensuring that allcompanies take their human rights due diligence responsibilities seriously becomes extremely difficult. While somecompanies may take their human rights responsibilities
seriously and implement robust human rights due diligence,
their competitors may decline to take any such steps andmay suffer no adverse consequence. Even companies that
do voluntarily undertake human rights due diligence canbenefit from strong practical guidance in the form of
reasonable government regulation.19 A new, international,
legally binding standard on human rights due diligence inglobal supply chains would be a major step towards
enhancing responsible businesses around the world.
Where states have imposed mandatory human rights due
diligence, company transparency has improved. This has
been for example the case of the Dodd Frank Act, a UnitedStates law requiring companies to publicly report on theextent to which they have conducted due diligence to ensure
their mineral supply chains do not fuel armed conflict in the
Democratic Republic of Congo.20 In 2015, the Modern Slavery
Act entered into force in the United Kingdom, obliging
companies to report annually on steps taken to ensure thatneither slavery nor human trafficking exist in any part oftheir business operations or supply chains.21 While it is too
early to judge the full impact of the law, it has the potential
to increase transparency about companies’ efforts to avoid
the involvement of modern slavery or trafficking in their
supply chains. Brazil is an interesting example of a country
producing for the global market where legal requirements
imposed on foreign companies sourcing tobacco havehelped prevent child labor, coupled with other government
measures. (See text box).

STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION: GOVERNMENT REGULATION OF BUSINESSHow governments can oblige businesses to conduct due diligence: Brazil’s measures to eliminate childlabor in tobacco farming
Brazil, the world’s second-largest tobacco producer, has taken steps to enforce a ban on child labor in tobacco farming and hold
both farmers and businesses in the supply chain accountable for violations of that ban. Because of the hazardous nature of
tobacco farming, Brazil has prohibited all work by children under 18 in the crop and established penalties severe enough todissuade farmers from allowing children to work in this sector. Penalties under Brazilian law apply not only to farmers, but also tocompanies purchasing the tobacco, creating an incentive for the tobacco industry to ensure that children are not working on farms
in their supply chains. Human Rights Watch research found that companies’ contracts with farmers generally included an explicit
ban on child labor, and provided for financial penalties if children were found working. Companies also made a point of sending“instructors” to visit farmers several times during each tobacco season to remind farmers that child labor was prohibited.
Recognizing that bans are not enough to eliminate child labor, Brazil has also put in place social programs for poor families to help
alleviate the financial desperation that drives parents to send their children to work. Though not a perfect system, Brazil’s
approach to child labor provides an example of how governments can address child labor in supply chains. Brazil’s example could
inform policy decisions in other tobacco-producing countries, where such steps have not been taken.22

The role of the ILO in setting binding
standards in global supply chains
The ILO is well-placed to initiate the process for a new,international, legally binding standard on human rights due
diligence in supply chains. The ILO’s tripartite structure
brings together workers, employers, and governments. ILO
Conventions have helped advance the protection of workers’
rights globally. In recent years, the ILO has also taken up theissue of supply chain due diligence. Together with theInternational Finance Cooperation, the ILO has set up the
Better Work program, a mechanism to monitor working
conditions in the apparel sector.23 The 2014 ILO Forced Labor
Protocol—which is not yet in force—also requires parties to“support due diligence” to prevent forced labor.24
The ILO should therefore take the lead in bringing about aninternational, binding standard on human rights in global
supply chains.

A voluntary standard on human rights
due diligence: The United Nations
Guiding Principles on Business andHuman Rights
The human rights responsibilities of businesses are spelled
out in a number of non-binding international standards,
including the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human
Rights, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation andDevelopment (OECD) Guidelines for Multinational
Enterprises, and several sector-specific OECD guidance
documents.25 A new international legally binding standard
on human rights due diligence in global supply chainsshould draw on these widely accepted standards, buildingon the concept of human rights due diligence put forward in
the UN Guiding Principles (as well as the OECD standards).
Under the UN Guiding Principles, businesses should ensurethat they respect human rights in their own activities as wellas through their business relationships in supply chains.
The UN Guiding Principles define safeguards—including socalled human rights due diligence measures—that
companies should have in place to identify, mitigate, andrespond to human rights risks throughout their supply
chains.

MAY 2016

Specifically, the UN Guiding Principles urge companies to:•

Implement a clear policy commitment torespect human rights, embedded in all
relevant business functions.

Develop a human rights due diligence processthat should:—

Identify and assess actual and potential
adverse human rights impacts;—

Prevent and mitigate adverse humanrights impacts;—

Verify whether adverse human rights
impacts are addressed; and—Communicate externally how adverse
human rights impacts are being
addressed.

•

Ensure adversely affected people are able tosecure remediation of any adverse humanrights impacts a business has caused orcontributed to.26
While some businesses have made progress to put the UN
Guiding Principles into practice, the standard’s voluntary
nature leaves companies free to shirk their responsibilities
without consequence. Even companies that have madegood faith efforts to live up to their human rights responsibilities have often failed to do so, partly because they lackthe sound guidance they need in the form of strong
government regulation. Far more needs to be done. Beloware examples of poor implementation of the UN Guiding
Principles, in particular weak company policy commitments,
human rights due diligence, and remediation efforts.

Companies’ Lack of Adequate Human
Rights Safeguards in Supply Chains
Weak human rights policy commitments and action
Under the UN Guiding Principles, businesses should have aclear human rights policy that spells out how the company
will seek to respect human rights. But many company
policies either fail to do this or are not adequately
implemented.
For example, many of the world’s construction, engineering,and project management firms have operations in thelucrative construction sector of the Gulf Cooperation Council
states. Despite pervasive risks of serious human rights
abuses in these operations, including the use of forcedlabor, few construction firms have adopted specific policies

11

HUMAN RIGHTS IN SUPPLY CHAINS: A CALL FOR A BINDING GLOBAL STANDARD ON DUE DILIGENCE

to address these risks and ensure the basic rights of all theworkers in their labor supply chain.27
Human Rights Watch has also found that companies
sometimes lack specific child labor policies, even thoughchild labor occurs in the countries they source from. For
example, at the time of Human Rights Watch’s documentation of child labor in tobacco farming in the US in 2013,
some tobacco companies did not have any child labor
policies at all, and defaulted to weak protections in US laborlaw.28Insufficient assessment and monitoring of risks ofhuman rights abuses
Companies should take steps to ensure that they know what
the risks of human rights violations in their supply chain are,and should monitor and address those risks on an ongoing

12

Women work in the sewing division of a factory in Phnom Penh,
Cambodia’s capital. Women constitute about 90 percent of theworkforce in Cambodia’s garment industry, which produces for many
international apparel brands. Human Rights Watch has documented thatworkers in many factories in Cambodia experience forced overtime, andhave been repeatedly issued short-term contracts used to discriminate
against union organizers and visibly pregnant workers.
© 2014 Samer Muscati/Human Rights Watch

basis. In order to correctly assess risks in their supply chain,companies need to be familiar with every link in their supply
chain.
In practice, businesses often fail to get a clear picture of thehuman rights risks contained in their supply chain. Somecompanies do not even map out all actors involved in their
supply chain.
For example, Metalor, a leading international gold refinery
based in Switzerland, has bought from a Ghanaian gold

HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH

export company that had not traced the origin of the gold it
sells on and has acknowledged that “we have no way ofknowing… whether the gold is from child labor.”29 Metalor
and other gold refineries have sourced gold from a supply
chain with a high risk of child labor, without taking adequate
steps to mitigate that risk.30
Failure to adequately assess human rights risks can also
contribute to violations of international humanitarian law, or
the laws of war. For example, an American retail chain
sourced linens from a manufacturer, which was located in an
Israeli settlement industrial zone in the occupied West Bank
before relocating to Israel in October 2015. Until then, theretail chain imported the settlement-produced goods,
thereby contributing to and benefitting from Israeli
settlement activity in occupied Palestinian territory, which
violates international humanitarian law. The company also
contributed to and benefited from human rights abuses
associated with the occupation. The manufacturer promoted
itself on its website as an exporter with a “home-base in
Israel” and labeled the linens as made in Israel, but theretailer—which appears to have known the true origin of thegoods—failed in its duty to conduct due diligence toascertain the true origin of the goods and to ensure that it
did not contribute to violations of the international humanitarian laws applicable to occupation and human rights
abuses.31
One method to assess and monitor risks is to conduct
inspections at production sites. However, businesses do notalways conduct such visits. Companies who visit production
sites may also conduct very superficial inspections and givethe local employer advance notice. As a result, abuses may
not be detected or may be concealed.32

Weaknesses in preventing and mitigating humanrights abuseOnce companies have identified risks to human rights, theyshould take steps to prevent or mitigate those risks.
Depending on the context these may include putting inplace regular surprise inspections, contractual obligations
for suppliers, whistleblower protection, and othermeasures.
Many companies fail to write specific human rights
requirements into contracts with their suppliers. For
example, most workers in the construction sector in the Gulf
States are not covered by meaningful labor protections
under domestic law, and most construction firms do notaddress this gap by insisting their contractors provide
adequate rights protections. In some high profile projects in
the Gulf States—such as construction associated with the

MAY 2016

2022 Qatar World Cup or on Saadiyat Island in Abu Dhabi—
contractual codes of labor protection are in place to regulate
the conduct of contractors and subcontractors, but these are
exceptions rather than the norm.33

Insufficient third-party auditing for human rights
issuesCompanies across many sectors engage third-party auditors
to verify compliance with laws, regulations, and voluntarystandards, including on responsible sourcing and respectfor human rights. They sometimes also outsource theassessment of human rights risks.
However, Human Rights Watch has found that these audits
frequently do not focus strongly enough on human rights,
are not conducted by human rights experts, or are too
limited in scope.
For example, in the precious minerals industry, voluntarystandards for responsible sourcing seek to ensure respectfor human rights alongside other goals, but third-party
verification of company compliance with these standards
has sometimes neglected human rights issues. In one case,
Human Rights Watch found that the summary report of anaudit against Dubai’s responsible sourcing standard for agold refinery in the United Arab Emirates did not mention
human rights at all, and did not include any site visits togold mines the refinery was sourcing from.34
In the tobacco industry, Human Rights Watch found that insome cases auditors inspected tobacco farms in the US, but
the inspections were deeply flawed. Auditors sometimes did
not speak the language of the workers, did not interview
workers during site visits, visited at times of the day or year
when children were not likely to be working, or announced
visits ahead of time.35
In Bangladesh, weak third-party social audits have been
identified as one of the factors that contributed to the Rana
Plaza collapse. According to trade unions, such audits often
addressed worker’s rights issues superficially or not at all.36
Since the Rana Plaza disaster, inspection of fire and building
safety has improved in the garment and footwear sector,
particularly in Bangladesh.
A large auditing company, Ernst and Young, has criticized a“checklist approach” in auditing that is “skewed towards
the detection of clerical errors and health and safety
questions with yes/no answers” in current social
compliance auditing across a variety of sectors andcountries.37

13

HUMAN RIGHTS IN SUPPLY CHAINS: A CALL FOR A BINDING GLOBAL STANDARD ON DUE DILIGENCE

Drawn by the promise of jobs, thousands of men from India,
Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, and Nepal work on Saadiyat
Island in the United Arab Emirates (UAE), a development
project which will host branches of the Louvre and Guggenheim
museums and a New York University campus. The project has
become a focal point for scrutiny of the UAE’s treatment of
migrant workers. Human Rights Watch first revealed serious
human rights abuses on Saadiyat in a 2009 report, and a 2015
report highlighted that significant problems remain, despite
the institution of codes of conduct for contractors. These
include systematic human rights violations of migrant workers
on the island, such as forced labor. Nowadays, there still
remain serious concerns.
© 2010 Samer Muscati/Human Rights Watch

14

HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH

Lack of adequate external communication andpublic reporting
All too often, businesses keep the results of their internal
and third-party inspections secret or publish only summary
audit reports. While some information could legitimately bekept internal, companies should report publicly on the steps
they have taken to conduct human rights due diligence. The
lack of adequate public reporting poses a serious problemof accountability. If companies do not disclose the steps
they have taken to identify, prevent, mitigate, or remediatehuman rights risks in their supply chain, abuses can becovered up, companies evade public scrutiny, and it is far
harder to remedy problems.
One example of weak public external communication is thepoor reporting on audits conducted among gold refineries
on responsible minerals supply chains. Gold refiners havepublished summary compliance reports and summary
reports of audits against several responsible sourcing
standards,38 but not the full findings. One refinery has noteven published the summary report of its audit against the“Responsible Gold Guidance” of the London Bullion Market
Association.39
Some brands, however, do publicly disclose information
about factories that produce for them, enabling better risk
assessments. (See text box).

STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION:
PUBLIC DISCLOSURE OF SUPPLIERS ENABLES
BETTER RISK ASSESSMENTS
Public disclosure of suppliers in the Garment and Footwear
SectorSome leading brands including Adidas, Disney, H&M, Levis, New Balance,
Nike, Patagonia, and Puma regularly publish lists of the factories
producing their clothes and shoes on their websites.
By publishing the names and locations factories producing for thecompany, companies bolster their ability to prevent and take timely
measures to mitigate and remediate labor rights violations in their supply
chains.
The disclosure of information by some brands in the garment and footwear
section is a powerful first step towards greater transparency.

MAY 2016

15

HUMAN RIGHTS IN SUPPLY CHAINS: A CALL FOR A BINDING GLOBAL STANDARD ON DUE DILIGENCE

Insufficient remediation
Where business enterprises have caused, contributed, or
been directly linked to rights abuses, they should provide
for or cooperate in the remediation of these abuses. But inpractice, Human Rights Watch has found a number of
instances where businesses have failed to take any effective
steps to ensure remedy for human rights abuses that haveoccurred in their supply chains.40
A positive example for remediation, if limited in scope, is thelegally binding Bangladesh Accord on Fire and Building
Safety. (See text box).

STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION:PREVENTION, MITIGATION,
AND REMEDIATION
The legally binding Bangladesh Accord on
Fire and Building Safety
In May 2013, in the immediate aftermath of the
Rana Plaza collapse, more than 200 apparel andfootwear companies signed a five-year legallybinding agreement with trade unions to work
towards factory building and fire safety in
Bangladesh’s garment industry. This agreement
paid attention to the serious flaws in the
Bangladesh labor inspectorate regarding building
safety, created an independent inspection system,and publicly disclosed all factories covered by theagreement, inspection reports, and corrective actionplans. The Accord, even though limited to fire andbuilding safety issues, has been a promising collaborative effort to improve due diligence.

Victims of the 2013 Rana Plaza building collapse and theirfamilies demonstrate at the site of the disaster, demanding fullcompensation. The building’s catastrophic collapse killed over
1,100 workers and injured over 2,000.
© 2014 G.M.B. Akash/Panos

16

HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH

MAY 2016

17

HUMAN RIGHTS IN SUPPLY CHAINS: A CALL FOR A BINDING GLOBAL STANDARD ON DUE DILIGENCE

1

International Labour Organization, “Forced labour, human trafficking and slavery,” undated, http://www.ilo.org/global/topics/forcedlabour/lang—en/index.htm (accessed April 8, 2016).
2
Human Rights Watch, Cambodia—“Work Faster or Get Out”: Labor Rights Abuses in Cambodia’s Garment Industry, March 2015,
https://www.hrw.org/report/2015/03/11/work-faster-or-get-out/labor-rights-abuses-cambodias-garment-industry; Human Rights Watch,
Bangladesh—“Whoever Raises their Head Suffers the Most”: Workers’ Rights in Bangladesh’s Garment Factories, April 2015,
https://www.hrw.org/report/2015/04/22/whoever-raises-their-head-suffers-most/workers-rights-bangladeshs-garment.
3
Human Rights Watch, United Arab Emirates—“The Island of Happiness”: Exploitation of Migrant Workers on Saadiyat Island, Abu Dhabi, May
2009, https://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/uae0509webwcover_4.pdf; Human Rights Watch, United Arab Emirates—The Island ofHappiness Revisited: A Progress Report on Institutional Commitments to Address Abuses of Migrant Workers on Abu Dhabi’s Saadiyat Island,
March 2012, https://www.hrw.org/report/2012/03/21/island-happiness-revisited/progress-report-institutional-commitments-address; Human
Rights Watch, Qatar—Building a Better World Cup: Protecting Migrant Workers in Qatar Ahead of FIFA 2022, June 2012, https://www.hrw.org/report/2012/06/12/building-better-world-cup/protecting-migrant-workers-qatar-ahead-fifa-2022; Human Rights Watch, Bahrain—For a Better
Life: Migrant Worker Abuse in Bahrain and the Government Reform Agenda, September 2012, https://www.hrw.org/report/2012/09/30/betterlife/migrant-worker-abuse-bahrain-and-government-reform-agenda; Human Rights Watch, United Arab Emirates—Migrant Workers’ Rights on
Saadiyat Island in the United Arab Emirates 2015 Progress Report, February 2015, https://www.hrw.org/report/2015/02/10/migrant-workersrights-saadiyat-island-united-arab-emirates/2015-progress-report.
4
International Labour Organization, “Following decades of rapid increase, global supply chain jobs shrink,” WCMS_370189, May 21, 2015,
http://www.ilo.org/global/about-the-ilo/newsroom/news/WCMS_370189/lang—en/index.htm (accessed April 7, 2016).
5
Jo Becker and Margaret Wurth (Human Rights Watch), “‘Kids want to work’ is a poor justification for laws that legalize work by 10-year-olds,”
commentary, Global Post, September 5, 2014, https://www.hrw.org/news/2014/09/05/kids-want-work-poor-justification-laws-legalize-work10-year-olds.
6
Human Rights Watch, Israel/Palestine—Ripe for Abuse: Palestinian Child Labor in Israeli Agricultural Settlements in the West Bank, April 2015,
https://www.hrw.org/report/2015/04/13/ripe-abuse/palestinian-child-labor-israeli-agricultural-settlements-west-bank.
7
Human Rights Watch, United States—Tobacco’s Hidden Children: Hazardous Child Labor in United States Tobacco Farming, May 2014,
https://www.hrw.org/report/2014/05/13/tobaccos-hidden-children/hazardous-child-labor-united-states-tobacco-farming; Human Rights Watch,
United States—Teens of the Tobacco Fields: Child Labor in United States Tobacco Farming, December 2015, https://www.hrw.org/
report/2015/12/09/teens-tobacco-fields/child-labor-united-states-tobacco-farming; Human Rights Watch, Upcoming report, Indonesia—“TheHarvest is in My Blood”: Hazardous Child Labor in Tobacco Farming in Indonesia, May 2016.
8
Human Rights Watch, Mali—A Poisonous Mix: Child Labor, Mercury, and Artisanal Gold Mining in Mali, December 2011, https://www.hrw.org/report/2011/12/06/poisonous-mix/child-labor-mercury-and-artisanal-gold-mining-mali; Human Rights Watch, Tanzania—Toxic Toil: Child Laborand Mercury Exposure in Tanzania’s Small-Scale Gold Mines, August 2013, https://www.hrw.org/report/2013/08/28/toxic-toil/child-labor-andmercury-exposure-tanzanias-small-scale-gold-mines; Human Rights Watch, Ghana—Precious Metal, Cheap Labor: Child Labor and Corporate
Responsibility in Ghana’s Artisanal Gold Mines, June 2015, https://www.hrw.org/report/2015/06/10/precious-metal-cheap-labor/child-laborand-corporate-responsibility-ghanas; Human Rights Watch, Philippines— “What … if Something Went Wrong?”: Hazardous Child Labor in SmallScale Gold Mining in the Philippines, September 2015, https://www.hrw.org/report/2015/09/29/what-if-something-went-wrong/hazardous-child-labor-small-scale-gold-mining.
9
World Health Organization, “An estimated 12.6 million deaths each year are attributable to unhealthy environments,” March 15, 2016,
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2016/deaths-attributable-to-unhealthy-environments/en/ (accessed March 23, 2016).
10
Human Rights Watch, Bangladesh—Toxic Tanneries: The Health Repercussions of Bangladesh’s Hazaribagh Leather, October 2012,https://www.hrw.org/report/2012/10/08/toxic-tanneries/health-repercussions-bangladeshs-hazaribagh-leather.
11
Human Rights Watch, Toxic Tanneries.
12
Human Rights Watch, Papua New Guinea—Gold’s Costly Dividend: Human Rights Impacts of Papua New Guinea’s Porgera Gold Mine, February
2011, https://www.hrw.org/report/2011/02/01/golds-costly-dividend/human-rights-impacts-papua-new-guineas-porgera-gold-mine.
13
Human Rights Watch, India—Out of Control: Mining, Regulatory Failure, and Human Rights in India, June 2012, https://www.hrw.org/
report/2012/06/14/out-control/mining-regulatory-failure-and-human-rights-india.
14
Stephan Böse-O’Reilly et al., “Mercury as Serious Health Hazard for Children in Gold Mining Areas,” Environmental Research, vol. 107 (2008);
United Nations Environmental Programme, “Mercury. Time to Act,” 2013, http://www.unep.org/PDF/PressReleases/Mercury_TimeToAct.pdf (accessed April 7, 2016).
15
Human Rights Watch, Mozambique—“What is a House without Food?” Mozambique’s Coal Mining Boom and Resettlements, May 2013,https://www.hrw.org/report/2013/05/23/what-house-without-food/mozambiques-coal-mining-boom-and-resettlements.
16
Human Rights Watch, Ethiopia—“What Will Happen if Hunger Comes?” Abuses Against the Indigenous Peoples of Ethiopia’s Lower Omo Valley,
June 2012, https://www.hrw.org/report/2012/06/18/what-will-happen-if-hunger-comes/abuses-against-indigenous-peoples-ethiopias-lower;
Human Rights Watch, Uganda—“How Can We Survive Here?” The Impact of Mining on Human Rights in Karamoja, Uganda, February 2014,
https://www.hrw.org/report/2014/02/03/how-can-we-survive-here/impact-mining-human-rights-karamoja-uganda.

18

HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH

17
Human Rights Watch, Democratic Republic of Congo—The Curse of Gold: Democratic Republic of Congo, June 2005,
https://www.hrw.org/report/2005/06/01/curse-gold. After Human Rights Watch exposed its relations with the armed group, AngloGold
Ashanti committed to severing all links with the group, reviewing its internal company procedures, and improving its understanding of the local
context in which it was operating.
18
Human Rights Watch, Israel-Palestine—Occupation, Inc.: How Settlement Businesses Contribute to Israel’s Violations of Palestinian Rights,
January 2016, https://www.hrw.org/report/2016/01/19/occupation-inc/how-settlement-businesses-contribute-israels-violations-palestinian.
19
Human Rights Watch, World Report 2013 (New York: Human Rights Watch, 2013), Without Rules: A Failed Approach to Corporate Accountability,
https://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/related_material/business.pdf.
20
Ibid.
21
Modern Slavery Act 2015 (Chapter 30), 2015, http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/30/pdfs/ukpga_20150030_en.pdf (accessed April
7, 2016).
22
Margaret Wurth (Human Rights Watch), “Tobacco’s Children. Brazil Sets An Example for the US,” The Progressive Magazine, November 3,
2015, https://www.hrw.org/news/2015/11/03/tobaccos-children-brazil-sets-example-us.
23
International Labour Organization (ILO), “Better Work,” undated, http://www.ilo.org/global/programmes-and-projects/WCMS_084616/lang—en/index.htm (accessed April 22, 2016).
24
ILO, Protocol of 2014 to the Forced Labor Convention 1930, adopted June 11, 2014, P029, enters into force November 9, 2016,
http://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=NORMLEXPUB:12100:0::NO::P12100_ILO_CODE:P029.
25
United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner, “Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights: Implementing the United
Nations ‘Protect, Respect and Remedy’ Framework,” New York and Geneva, 2011, http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/GuidingPrinciplesBusinessHR_EN.pdf (accessed April 7, 2016); Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), “OECD Guidelines forMultinational Enterprises,” 2011, http://www.oecd.org/daf/inv/mne/48004323.pdf (accessed April 8, 2016); OECD, “OECD Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Supply Chains of Minerals from Conflict-Affected and High-Risk Areas: Second Edition,” 2013,
http://www.oecd.org/daf/inv/mne/GuidanceEdition2.pdf (accessed April 8, 2016); OECD and Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations (FAO), “OECD-FAO Guidance for Responsible Agricultural Supply Chains,” 2016, https://mneguidelines.oecd.org/OECD-FAOGuidance.pdf (accessed April 8, 2016).
26
UN Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner, “Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights.”
27
Human Rights Watch, Migrant Workers’ Rights on Saadiyat Island: 2015 Progress Report.
28
Human Rights Watch, Tobacco’s Hidden Children; Human Rights Watch, Teens of the Tobacco Fields.
29
Human Rights Watch, Precious Metal, Cheap Labor.
30
Human Rights Watch, Precious Metal, Cheap Labor.
31
Human Rights Watch, Occupation, Inc.
32
Human Rights Watch, Tobacco’s Hidden Children; Human Rights Watch, Teens of the Tobacco Fields; Human Rights Watch, Precious Metal,
Cheap Labor.
33
Human Rights Watch, “The Island of Happiness”; Human Rights Watch, Migrant Workers’ Rights on Saadiyat Island in the United Arab Emirates
2015 Progress Report.
34
Ernst and Young, “Independent Reasonable Assurance Report on Emirates Gold DMCC’s Refiner’s Compliance Report,” March 26, 2015,
http://www.emiratesgold.ae/images/pdf/2014%20DMCC%20Emirates%20Gold%20Compliance%20and%20Assurance%20Reports%20EY%2
0final.pdf (accessed April 7, 2016). The standard against which Emirates Gold was audited was the Dubai Multi Commodities Centre (DMCC)
Practical Guidance for market participants in the gold and precious metals industry.
35
Human Rights Watch, Tobacco’s Hidden Children; Human Rights Watch, Teens of the Tobacco Fields.
36
Human Rights Watch, “Whoever Raises their Head Suffers the Most.” The trade unions referred to inspections in general.
37
Ernst and Young, “Human Rights and Professional Wrongs: Rethinking Corporate Social Compliance in the Supply Chain,” undated,
http://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/EY_-_Human_rights_and_professional_wrongs/$FILE/ey-Social-compliance-and-human-rightsreport.pdf (accessed March 23, 2016).
38
These standards are the Responsible Gold Guidance of the London Bullion Market Association (LBMA), the Chain-of-Custody Standard of the
Responsible Jewellery Council (RJC), and the Practical Guidance for market participants in the gold and precious metals industry of the Dubai
Multi-Commodities Centre (DMCC).
39
Human Rights Watch, Precious Metal, Cheap Labor.
40
Human Rights Watch, Migrant Workers’ Rights on Saadiyat Island: 2015 Progress Report; Human Rights Watch, Toxic Tanneries.

MAY 2016

19

HUMAN RIGHTS IN SUPPLY CHAINS: A CALL FOR A BINDING GLOBAL STANDARD ON DUE DILIGENCE

During a surge in foreign investment in Mozambique, the government
and multinational companies resettled local communities away fromfertile lands to make way for coal mining. The compensation package
included a house, but the land had poor water access and was
unsuitable for staple food crops. “The farming land we received isred, not black like we had before. I tried to grow corn and it died.
Sorghum also failed…. I am not that satisfied. What I can say is, what
is a house without food? I cannot eat my house,” said Maria C.
© 2012 Samer Muscati / Human Rights Watch

20

HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH

HUMAN RIGHTS IN SUPPLY CHAINSA Call for a Binding Global Standard on Due DiligenceAround the world an estimated 450 million people work in global supply chains. They include factory workers producing branded
apparel and footwear for consumers worldwide; farm workers growing tobacco purchased by cigarette manufacturers; and artisanalminers digging gold that is destined for the global market. Businesses increasingly rely on complex chains of suppliers that span
multiple countries to source their goods and services. Subject to radically different legal, regulatory, and human rights practices,
these businesses may cause or contribute to human rights abuses. Yet, there is no international legally binding standard to regulate the human rights practices of businesses.
Human Rights in Supply Chains sets out some of the most pervasive human rights problems documented by Human Rights Watchin global supply chains. These include labor rights abuses, child labor, environmental damage, and violations of the rights tohealth, land, food, and water. The report highlights abuses in the agriculture, garment and footwear, mining, construction, andother sectors in every region of the world.
Human Rights Watch calls upon governments, employers, and workers at the 2016 International Labour Conference to initiate theprocess for a new, international, legally binding standard. This standard would oblige governments to require businesses to conduct human rights due diligence across the entirety of their global supply chains(front cover) A garment worker sews clothing in a buildingnear the site of the Rana Plaza building collapse.
© 2014 G.M.B. Akash/Panos

hrw.org