John Gapper writes that corporate failure to oversee ethical production may be explained on the grounds of cost (“Forced labour is the price of a cheap cotton T-shirt”, Opinion, September 19). This is at odds with current legal developments which point towards greater corporate responsibility.
In 2015 the UK introduced an obligation on all UK-based businesses to report possible, and actual, abuses of workers’ basic rights in their global supply chains. While these responsibilities are relatively weak — the Australian modern slavery statute has stronger requirements — the UK is among a number of countries acting to provide greater accountability for supply chain abuses.
This follows on from the 2011 United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, which introduced a voluntary corporate code to respect human rights — including workers’ rights.
Also included is a state obligation to regulate corporate human rights abuses and improve access to an effective remedy. The Modern Slavery Act is one more part of the UK’s plan.
Due diligence-based human rights risk assessment is being strengthened by a positive duty to carry out such an assessment and sanctions for failure to do so. For example, in 2017, France passed a mandatory duty of vigilance law against corporate abuses of human rights. The EU is also discussing a Europe wide mandatory due diligence regulation.
Finally, a UN treaty on business and human rights is currently under negotiation. It includes duties on companies to observe fundamental rights coupled with legal liability for infringements.
The days when multinationals can claim that monitoring ethical behaviour by subcontractors is not possible, or that the cost of doing so is too great, are slowly coming to an end.
Peter Muchlinski
Emeritus Professor of International Commercial Law, Soas
University of London, London WC1, UK
