The legislation, known colloquially as Canada’s Modern Slavery Act, does not require large Canadian companies to actually take actions to prevent or reduce the risk of forced labour and child labour in their supply chains.

The act also doesn’t hold companies accountable when forced labour is found. Similar weak disclosure laws in California, the United Kingdom and Australia have already been found to be ineffective by academic researchers.

Our recent investigation at the Governing Forced Labour in Supply Chains Project into the Canadian apparel company Lululemon Athletica casts doubt on the ability of this new law to tackle labour abuse.

The new law falls short of what is required to make large corporations exercise due diligence to prevent labour abuse from occurring within their supply chains.

Remembering Rana Plaza

This new Canadian law comes a decade after the tragic collapse of the nine-storey Rana Plaza building in Bangladesh that killed nearly 1,130 garment workers and injured over 2,500. The disaster raised concerns about the ability of voluntary corporate initiatives to address labour rights violations and protect workers.

In response to the tragedy, an agreement between brands, retailers and trade unions called the Accord on Fire and Building Safety in Bangladesh was established. The accord was designed to improve workplace safety and prevent future accidents in the garment sector.

Building on this initiative, the International Accord for Health and Safety in the Textile and Garment Industry — with 198 brand and retailer signatories — was introduced in 2021.

Remarkably, only one Canadian garment company — Loblaw Companies Ltd., the parent company of the Joe Fresh brand — has signed the accord. Other Canadian companies prefer their own voluntary initiatives.

Legislation aimed at addressing forced labour in supply chains has the potential to address these weak corporate initiatives — but only if the law is strong enough.

Lululemon report

Our report, Lululemon’s Conundrum: Good Corporate Social Responsibility Initiatives and the Persistence of Forced Labour, examines Lululemon’s efforts to address potential labour abuse in its supply chain.

In 2021, KnowTheChain — which evaluates companies’ efforts to address forced labour risks in their supply chains based on international labour standards — ranked Lululemon first among 129 apparel and footwear companies for its measures to address forced labour risks.

Despite being recognized as an industry leader in this area, an investigation by researchers at Sheffield Hallam University in England found that Lululemon was at a high risk of sourcing from the Xinjiang region in China — which has been associated with forced labour and human rights abuses — that same year.

In response to this accusation, Lululemon stated it had zero tolerance for forced labour, was committed to all the workers in its global supply chain and regularly monitored vendors globally through a due diligence process.

Lululemon supplier concerns

Lululemon does not own or operate any of the manufacturing or raw materials facilities used to make its apparel. Its April 2023 supplier list revealed the company sourced from suppliers located in four out of the 10 worst countries for workers’ rights violations according to the 2021 Global Rights Index created by International Trade Union Confederation: Bangladesh, Colombia, the Philippines and Turkey.

According to the supplier list, one of Lululemon’s largest manufacturing facilities is in Bangladesh, with over 13,000 workers — 70 per cent of whom are women. Despite this, Lululemon has not signed the 2021 International Accord for Health and Safety in the Textile and Garment Industry.

Two reports found that from 2018 to 2019, workers at a Lululemon supplier factory had to work two to three nights without being allowed to go home or take necessary breaks.

While a 2022 follow-up investigation determined this situation had been rectified by Lululemon and the supplier, some workers reported they still felt unable to refuse overtime requests.

According to the follow-up report, the supplier at the same factory also engaged in serious union-busting tactics, including firing the union’s elected leaders and reports from workers that some managers had threatened to close the factory if the workers unionized.

The follow-up report found that while many of the anti-union issues had been addressed, some supervisors reportedly made comments that could be construed as still discouraging workers from joining the union.

Corporate transparency issues

Lululemon has several codes and policies in place to address forced labour. One is the Lululemon Global Code of Business Conduct and Ethics, which states that employees and vendors are to adhere to labour and employment standards in the countries they operate in, unless the code sets a higher standard.

Employees are encouraged to report any violations to this code internally through Lululemon or externally using third-party tools such as the international Integrity Line. This phone line allows employees to anonymously report complaints at any time.

However, third-party complaint avenues pose challenges, including requiring tech access, trusting unfamiliar third parties and filing a complaint that protects one’s anonymity while still providing enough detail about worker issues.

Another code Lululemon has in place is the Vendor Code of Ethics and its accompanying Benchmarks policy. Vendors are responsible for enforcing key aspects of the code of ethics, including creating grievance and disciplinary systems for violations and training workers on the policy’s content. When vendors use subcontractors, they are the ones responsible for ensuring subcontractors adhere to the policy.

While Lululemon can conduct unannounced visits to monitor their compliance with the Vendor Code of Ethics, this is rarely done. Only one per cent of assessments in 2019 were unannounced. Lululemon also works with third-party auditors sometimes, which can be problematic since these auditors rely on their clients to stay in business, raising questions about the authenticity of auditing reports.

Reliance on local labour laws

Lululemon’s measures to address forced labour largely rely on the labour laws in the countries in which the suppliers are located. Relying on local labour laws is a major shortcoming of many corporate initiatives, since they often fall short of international legal norms and are not well enforced.

In California, the United Kingdom and Australia, Lululemon is required by law to report on its efforts to detect, remedy and eradicate forced labour in its supply chains. However, the information necessary for evaluating the effectiveness of these initiatives is not available to researchers, the public or workers.

Crucial information about all the participants and purchasing practices in a supply chain, such as the amount of lead time suppliers are given for orders and whether suppliers get paid on time, are not provided. Additionally, information on how workers navigate Lululemon’s policies and grievance mechanisms is not publicly available.

Due diligence legislation needed

Our study raises concerns about the effectiveness of current transparency and disclosure laws as an effective tool for combating forced labour in supply chains.

Disclosure laws, like those in Canada’s new act, will not require Lululemon to reveal the type of information needed to ensure its suppliers are not abusing workers. Nor does the new law require large multinational corporations to take any steps to eradicate labour abuses in the supply chains.

Our study suggests disclosure laws are a form of window dressing that can be used by companies to project an image of social responsibility to consumers, rather than genuinely improving the working conditions for supply chain workers.

It’s time to require companies to take real steps to rid their supply chains of labour abuse. If Canada is to truly eradicate forced labour in global supply chains, it needs mandatory due diligence legislation that involves supply chain workers at every stage of the process — before another disaster like Rana Plaza occurs.

Editor’s note: Prior to publishing this story, The Conversation sought comment from Lululemon about how the company is complying with the new Fighting Against Forced Labour and Child Labour in Supply Chains Act, as well as some other issues raised in this article. Lululemon did not respond.

Gayathri Krishna is a PhD candidate at the School of Labour Studies at McMaster University, Judy Fudge is the LIUNA Enrico Henry Mancinelli chair of Global Labour Issues, also at McMaster University’s School of Labour Studies, and Kaitlyn Matulewicz is a researcher for the Governing Forced Labour in Supply Chains Project.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

The post How Canada’s Modern Slavery Act lets fashion brands hide behind aura of social responsibility appeared first on Corporate Knights.

These are the first official probes launched by the Office of the Canadian Ombudsperson for Responsible Enterprise (CORE), which was set up in 2019 to hold Canadian garment, mining, and oil and gas companies that operate outside Canada accountable for possible human rights abuses.  

The investigations are based on complaints filed by a coalition of 28 civil organizations, led by the Uyghur Rights Advocacy Project, in June 2022. CORE says it received a total of 13 “admissible complaints” about the overseas operations of Canadian companies, and it has committed to releasing initial assessments on the remaining 11 “in the coming weeks.”.  

“These are very serious issues that have been brought to our attention,” Sheri Meyerhoffer, CORE ombudsperson, said this week.  

“Canadian companies are expected to respect Canadian standards for human rights and environmental protection when they work outside of Canada.” 

Other corporate watchdogs are already warning of the serious limitations of CORE’s ability to get to the truth, something they have been calling on the federal government to change.  

In 2022, the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights found far-reaching and arbitrary human rights abuses imposed on Uyghurs and other predominantly Muslim communities living in Xinjiang, an autonomous region of China located in the northwest of the country.  

Nike is accused of having supply relationships with Chinese companies identified as using or benefiting from the use of Uyghur forced labour, while Dynasty Gold is accused of benefiting from the use of Uyghur forced labour at a mine in China in which it holds a majority interest.  

In both cases, mediation is not an option, CORE said in a press release.  

In the case of Nike Canada, the complainants zero in on six manufacturing companies with which the sport apparel company is alleged to have relationships or supply chains. The complainants cite findings by the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) about factories that employ Uyghur workers who attended “vocational training” or “patriotic education” or “reeducation” classes and include in their evidence bills of lading that show that Nike Canada imported shipments from some of the Chinese companies. The complainants also provide the findings of an investigation by Sheffield Hallam University into the laundering of cotton from the region, detailed in CORE’s Initial Assessment Report, which was released this week.  

In a separate report, CORE looks at allegations of forced labour at Dynasty Gold’s Hatu mine, located in northwest Xinjiang, near Uyghur “detention” or “reeducation” centres. Among the evidence cited by the complainants are public statements by the mine acknowledging that Uyghurs are part of their workforce. “Dynasty Gold’s response to the complaint is that it does not have operational control over the mine and that these allegations arose after it left the region,” CORE noted in its press release. “The Complainants claim that while it is possible that XNF and its subsidiary Western Gold have had operational control of the Hatu mine, this does not remove the responsibility from DYG to ensure that forced labour is not present in its mining operations abroad.”  

Nike Canada responded to CORE by directing it to a response it had previously made to the 2020 ASPI report in which it denied having working relationships with three of the companies listed. It said that a fourth company no longer has employees from the Xinjiang region.  

“Our ongoing diligence has not found evidence of employment of Uyghurs, or other ethnic minorities from the [Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region], elsewhere in our supply chain in China,” it said in a statement. “Nike takes very seriously any reports about forced labor and we have been engaging with multi-stakeholder working groups to assess collective solutions that will help preserve the integrity of our global supply chains,” the company said.  

[This] is a warning sign to other Canadian companies to review their business practices and investigate their supply chains for products tainted with forced labour.

 

– Uyghur Rights Advocacy Project

In its assessment report, CORE identified “conflicts” in the available information – noting, for example, that Nike claims that the bills of lading for one factory in question are from Vietnam, not Xinjiang – but added “the complex nature of garment supply chains” means that “more information is required to consider whether Nike’s [human rights due diligence] is consistent with the robust due diligence required by a high-risk context such as Xinjiang.” 

Organizations such as Above Ground NGO, which is fighting for accountability from Canadian companies operating abroad, say they are encouraged by the CORE’s announcements, while still concerned about its hamstrung investigative powers.  

“The office lacks the power to properly investigate wrongdoing; it still can’t compel witness testimony or force companies to share evidence,” the Canadian Network on Corporate Accountability wrote on Twitter. 

In a statement, the Uyghur Rights Advocacy Project applauded the investigations, noting that they could have legal ramifications, in the form of recommendations from the ombudsperson regarding trade measures, or the withdrawal of government support of companies.  

“CORE’s announcement is a warning sign to other Canadian companies to review their business practices and investigate their supply chains for products tainted with forced labour,” it said.  

In a press release, Meyerhoffer said she launched the investigations to “get the facts” and recommend appropriate actions.  

“It is our mission to resolve human rights complaints in a fair and unbiased manner in order to help those impacted and to strengthen the responsible business practices of the companies involved.”  

The post Canada’s corporate watchdog finally goes after alleged human rights abuses abroad appeared first on Corporate Knights.

Last month, the Church of England promised to set up a £100-million fund, looking to make amends for its links to the international slave trade. The fund will focus “on improving opportunities for communities adversely impacted by historic slavery.” But slavery is not just a thing of the past. 

Globally, 50 million people are living in modern slavery, including 28 million in forced labour, according to the latest research from the International Labour Organization. This is 10 million more than in 2016 – a spike in numbers greater than the entire population of London.  

No company can put its head in the sand when it comes to this problem. 

​​​​​Business has a key role to play in eradicating this reality. Nearly two-thirds of forced labour (63%) occurs in the private sector, and the consumer goods industry is deeply impacted, with most cases identified in agriculture and manufacturing.  

Undoubtedly, it can be challenging to take on a leadership role when it comes to excluding abuse from global supply chains. The issue is sensitive, often hidden and deeply rooted, and the complexity of global value chains doesn’t make tracing it any easier. However, forced labour is a lot closer to most companies’ operations and supply chains than they would think. Respecting workers’ rights is the first social responsibility of any business, and freedom from forced labour must be the top priority.  

As the world’s largest convener of consumer-goods brands and retailers working together to drive positive change, The Consumer Goods Forum is deeply concerned about the increasing prevalence of forced labour globally in the last few years. We are committed to driving corporate action against this mounting social scourge, which is the focus of our CEO-led initiative, the Human Rights Coalition (HRC). 

Nearly two-thirds of forced labour (63%) occurs in the private sector, and the consumer goods industry is deeply impacted.

Our #CloserThanYouThink campaign aims to push all companies to speak up and increase awareness on human rights. Silence is unacceptable. While legislation is providing frameworks to mandate human-rights due diligence, businesses may be hesitant, fearing the negative connotations of being associated with modern slavery and forced labour in any way. Even those taking a proactive stance against it still struggle to efficiently identify potential cases of forced labour and handle situations of victims with the highest level of protection required. Governments should acknowledge these difficulties and support business action with adequate measures to encourage transparency and provide protection and remediation for victims. 

Driving awareness of the issue is integral to its eradication. When companies start being transparent and explaining what they’re doing to combat adverse human rights impacts in their supply chains, then consumers will understand the sheer scale of the problem.  

Increasing multitudes of people being forced to work under the threat of violence, intimidation, debt bondage or coercion is deeply unacceptable. And the harrowing reality is that 3.3 million of the people in forced labour are children. Other vulnerable populations are disproportionately impacted, such as women and girls and migrant workers.  

Companies must not only acknowledge the scale of the issue, but also ensure they offer an enabling environment for decent, fair and safe working conditions for all.  

What does this mean in practice? Our members are collaborating to eliminate forced labour by working to make human-rights due diligence and responsible recruitment the norm in the industry. We urge all businesses to follow suit.  

Going forward, we urgently need globally harmonized policy and legislation to ensure all workers’ rights are protected. In the meantime, corporate collaboration and co-operation will be key. The truth is that no company or industry can eradicate forced labour alone. Businesses will have to work with each other, but also with governments and non-profits – because today’s complex supply chains often span many countries, if not continents.  

Collective action is required to increase the visibility of what’s happening along the way. The further down ​the ​supply chain you go, the more precarious​ the ​work tends to be, especially in sectors like agriculture or manufacturing. The risks of abuse are at their greatest on the ground. 

Everyone should have the right to decent, fair and safe working conditions. Yet we are currently a long way from that scenario. Forced labour is a lot closer than you think, and no business is immune. On behalf of the members of our Human Rights Coalition, I urge all businesses to think critically about their exposure to forced labour risks and keep action on this issue top of mind in 2023.  

Together, we have the power to reverse the troubling figures showing a rise in forced labour – never forgetting that there are people behind the statistics.

The post No company can bury its head in the sand when it comes to forced labour   appeared first on Corporate Knights.

Last week, Senator Leo Housakos introduced a private member’s bill in the Canadian Senate that, if passed, would ban all imports from the region.

Joining a long list of human rights groups, governments and others, Amnesty International this summer accused the Chinese government of carrying out massive, systematic abuses against two million Muslims in Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region in order to “forcibly assimilate [them] into a homogenous Chinese nation possessing a unified language, culture, and unwavering loyalty to the Chinese Communist Party.”

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen announced in September that the EU will ban forced-labour products after several German clothing companies were accused of profiting from Uyghur labour in Xinjiang. 

In July, the U.S. Senate passed a bill banning all products made in Xinjiang. And this fall, Georgia Senator Jon Ossoff called for the U.S. to completely shed its reliance on Chinese supply chains to build up its solar energy capability. The global production of solar panels has been linked to forced labour in Xinjiang, where 45% of the world’s polysilicon supply (a key component in solar panels) is manufactured.

The Canadian government has been warning companies to be wary of suppliers that may be linked to China’s oppression of Uyghurs and other Turkic Muslims since earlier this year. 

The Chinese government has also been accused of herding ethnic minorities into forced labour camps as part of a larger program of ethnic cleansing – allegations the country denies. Canada and many other nations prohibit the import of goods produced by forced labour, and companies linked to the repression of workers in or from Xinjiang risk their financial and reputational futures. 

The authoritarian regime’s position as the world’s largest manufacturer has often left the rest of the world torn between opposing China’s human-rights abuses and jeopardizing trade relations. But Canadian business leaders can count on one political reality: failure to police your supply chain in Xinjiang could mean you’re helping to perpetuate these abuses, even unintentionally.

This isn’t just a problem for companies buying supplies from Xinjiang. Reports indicate that the government has relocated Uyghur labourers and other ethnic minorities to factories across the People’s Republic, meaning forced labour could be a component of any Chinese supply chain.

Canada is taking these issues seriously. Last fall, a parliamentary subcommittee called China’s mistreatment of Xinjiang’s Muslims “the largest mass detention of a minority community since the Holocaust.” In February, the House of Commons declared China’s actions “genocide.” While members of the federal Cabinet abstained from that vote, a month later Ottawa imposed sanctions on China for the first time since the 1989 protests in Tiananmen Square. The sanctions prohibit Canadians from dealing with named Xinjiang officials or the state-owned company that runs the region’s detention camps.

Last year, the federal government also enacted a ban on importing products made with forced labour, as part of its obligations under the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement. The Globe and Mail reports that the Canada Border Services Agency has since blocked at least one shipment from China under the prohibition. Housakos says his bill, which would impose a blanket geographic ban on products from Xinjiang, would make it easier for officials to confiscate problematic shipments. 

Researchers say forced labour often occurs at the early stages of the supply chain. The highest risk likely involves products made with cotton, although other dodgy categories include electronics, chemicals, cars, tomato products and solar panel components. In mid-November, a CBC Marketplace investigation conducted in partnership with The Guardian and the Investigative Reporting Project Italy revealed that major food brands, such as Nestlé, Del Monte and Unilever, had bought tomatoes for their products from companies in Xinjiang and processed them in intermediary countries. 

A recent report by researchers at Sheffield Hallam University in England also found that more than 100 big retailers, including Lululemon, Banana Republic, Costco, H&M and others, were at high risk of having cotton from Xinjiang in their products.

How can businesses reduce their risks? “Companies should be revising their sanctions policies and procedures,” advises Toronto law firm McCarthy Tétrault. The firm warns that companies need to be aware of who is on Canada’s sanctions list and what they own. Companies are urged to take advantage of the federal Trade Commissioner Service, part of Global Affairs Canada, which can offer updated advice on due diligence and risk mitigation related to forced labour. 

All importers are advised to develop their own expertise in supply-chain monitoring.

The post Is China’s forced Uyghur labour hiding in Canadian supply chains? appeared first on Corporate Knights.

The Corporate Knights Dark Red Flag Database consists of more than 2,500 companies from developed and emerging economies that have been identified as so-called ‘red flag companies’ due to their involvement in ethically or environmentally questionable industries and/or practices. These companies have been identified through a rigorous process including theme selection, source reliability analysis, and company identification processes. The list is updated monthly to reflect changes in source material. Sources include methodologically-sound reports by non-profits, bottom-up research by Corporate Knights, and the public and derived exclusions of two significant funds (Norges Bank Investment Management and NZ Super Fund).

The dark red flag themes are as following: Access to medicine laggards; Access to nutrition laggards; Adult entertainment; Blocking climate policy; Cement carbon laggards; Civilian firearms; Controversial weapons; Conventional weapons; Deforestation & Palm oil laggards; Energy (Fossil Fuels); Farm animal welfare laggards; For-profit prisons; Gambling; Gross corruption violations; Harmful pesticides; Illegal activity; Oil sands laggards; Severe environmental damage; Severe human rights violations; Thermal coal; and Tobacco.

In addition to the dark red flags, Corporate Knights also maintains a database of “light red flag” companies for the following themes: Alcohol; Blocking climate resolutions; Financing misleading media; Industrial meat; and Nuclear energy.

Please e-mail research@corporateknights.com for more information.

The post Corporate Knights Radar: Sustainable solutions and red flag database appeared first on Corporate Knights.

The truth is, most people didn’t even notice. Of the ten or so shoppers who showed interest in the “Product may contain slave labour” shirt at the front of the H&M, only two actually read the sign. Sitting on the sidelines, I listened to a shocked mother and daughter examine the shirt marked as potentially being created by slaves and yet they still entered the store, continuing their shopping as usual. Meanwhile, the “Product has been certified to be slave labour free” sign received even less attention.

When I repeated the process at the Gap and put the stickers on men’s jeans and women’s t-shirts, only 20% of people acknowledged the signs. Considering that labels act as powerful tools to warn consumers about allergens like peanuts, my stickers seemed hopeless in aiding consumers’ purchasing decisions as so many people overlooked them.

This lack of attentiveness doesn’t necessarily mean that consumers don’t want to buy more ethically. In 2016, Morgan Stanley surveyed 1,000 customers in the U.K. regarding their views on leading clothing retailers. 51% of respondents said that ethical credentials were somewhat or very important when deciding among apparel retailers. The same study also found that 62% of respondents valued good ethics as a key spending criterion. Good ethics landed in the middle of a list of 12 factors; good value for money was first at 84% and good advertising last at 36%.

To shop ethically, it’s critical for consumers to understand that slavery is not an idea of the past. An estimated 25 million people, the majority of which are in Asia Pacific, are victims of forced labour and subject to slavery, debt bondage and human trafficking. They’re found in the supply chains of global industries from canned tuna to British spring onions. Forced labour is also woven into the production of cotton, leather, textiles and garments at the world’s largest clothing retailers. According to the Global Slavery Index, the clothing industry is the second largest supporter of modern slavery after electronics.

Ethical sticker experiment seemed hopeless in aiding consumer purchasing decisions as so many people overlooked them. But lack of attentiveness doesn’t necessarily mean that consumers don’t want to lobal sla more ethically.

Last month, an Australian ABC television investigation uncovered that Target and H&M were among the brands sourcing cotton from China’s troubled Xinjiang province, where detained Muslim Uyghurs are reportedly forced to work in textile factories. The brands said they are investigating their relationship with suppliers.

Patricia Carrier, a program manager at Modern Slavery Registry, told Ethical Corporation that “given the prevalence of modern slavery in global supply chains, we know that most global companies will have it somewhere in their supply chains, very far down where they don’t have much visibility or leverage.”

The International Labour Organization values profits from slavery at $150 billion a year, making it more fruitful than Apple. Essentially, these victims are part of the reason why we can walk into our favourite fashion retailers, snag a great deal on a pair of jeans and feel economically satisfied because we found our size before it sold out.

The 2015 documentary The True Cost highlighted several of the gruesome aspects of fast fashion. It delved into the lives of low wage workers in developing countries and featured a 23-year-old Bangladeshi garment factory worker named Shima Akhter. It’s Akhter’s plea to consumers at the end of the film that is most chilling. “I don’t want anyone wearing anything,” she says, “that is produced with our blood.”

After hearing Akhter’s teary-eyed message, I assured myself that I would never again buy from a fast fashion retailer until later that week when I found the perfect summer dress at Zara. Could I consider myself an ethical consumer or was I some sort of monster?

A possible explanation for the lack of practice in ethical consumerism is that people often have different goals in different contexts. For instance, in the long run someone may want to lose weight but in the short term they’ll eat an entire chocolate cake.

A study called “The Socially Conscious Consumer? Field Experimental Tests of Consumer Support for Fair Labor Standards” tested this idea in 111 Banana Republic Factory stores across the U.S. by arranging two different signs around the stores. One highlighted the fashion attributes of products while the other explained the company’s commitment to promoting fair and safe working conditions. The labels with information about labour standards on low priced men’s and women’s items had no statistical impact on sales in outlet malls. Notably, the labour signs did have a positive effect on female shoppers looking at higher priced items.

Notably, the labour signs did have a positive effect on female shoppers looking at higher priced items.

 

The blinkered mindset, which many consumers maintain while shopping, makes it difficult to consider the ethical implications of a purchase. I liken this to going to a rib fest with my vegetarian best friend and having her try to convince me to eat salad instead. Of course, I love animals but I’ve come with the intent to buy ribs and that is what I will eat.

People may also engage in unethical behaviour and defend their desired perception through motivated reasoning. One study title sums it up concisely: “Sweatshop Labour is Wrong Unless the Shoes are Cute: Cognition Can Both Help and Hurt Motivated Moral Reasoning.” Georgetown University researchers found that a great sale or exclusive offer can justify labour practices, as can assumptions that sweatshops are the only realistic source of income for workers in poorer countries. The study also found that consumers that were stressed, distracted or preoccupied were less likely to justify sweatshop labor “due to a lack of mental capacity to convince themselves of something that isn’t true.”

A recent report by the San Francisco-based supply chain benchmarkers at KnowTheChain ranked global companies on the steps they took to eliminate forced labour throughout their supply chains. Gap (which scored 75/100), and H&M (65/100) were among the leaders, which is why I chose to target them for my experiment. The stickers, evidently, received little attention, but is it right to put the onus on consumers whose goals lead them to shy away from considering the use of slave labour in products?

In Canada, many of the most vigilant shoppers have trouble arriving at informed decisions. World Vision found that 80% of Canadians have no insight into whether their purchases assist in the exploitation of children. The study also noted that 90% of Canadians agree that the government should obligate companies to publicly report on their suppliers as well as their efforts to curtail slave labour in their supply chains.

90% of Canadians agree that the government should obligate companies to publicly report on their suppliers

 

Engaged citizens and advocates are encouraging Canada to follow in the steps of the U.K., California, the Netherlands and France in passing legislation to address modern slavery. The U.K.’s Modern Slavery Act guarantees that companies who operate at least part of their business in the U.K. and have approximately $73 million in annual gross global turnover are held liable for actions in their supply chains.

Kevin Thomas, the CEO of the Shareholder Association for Research and Education (SHARE) explains that “Canada needs the type of regulation that would empower private sector companies to report on their due diligence efforts to restrain and eliminate the use of modern slavery in their supply chains.”

Last December, a private member’s bill calling for a modern slavery act in Canada was tabled by Liberal MP John McKay. The proposed act would ask companies doing business in Canada (with at least $40 million in annual revenue) to submit public annual reports on the steps taken to prevent and reduce the risk of forced and child labour in their supply chain. In June, Employment and Social Development Canada held consultations on how the federal government should address labour exploitation in supply chains. Any further work on this has been suspended until after the federal election in October.

Would a modern slavery act survive the next federal election if there’s a change in government? SHARE’s manager of engagement and policy, Delaney Greig, is hopeful, “We believe this is a cross-party issue and does not depend on the same government being re-elected. Modern Slavery Acts in the U.K. and Australia have come in under conservative governments.”

Either way, the more pressure put on government and companies to root out modern slavery, the more likely they are to provide better working conditions for those whose anguish is on the clothing we wear daily.

The post Warning: garment may contain slave labour appeared first on Corporate Knights.