How-to guide: How to assess modern slavery risk in supply chains (USA)

Introduction

This guide will assist in-house counsel and private practice lawyers to assess and mitigate the risk of modern slavery risks in supply chains. It sets out key issues to address and points to consider when dealing with suppliers where slavery may be a risk. The guide covers the following:

General overview
Definitions and scope
Legal standards and guidelines and
Due diligence

This guide can be used in conjunction with the following How-to guides: How to draft a business continuity plan and How to develop a sustainable supply chain and Checklists: Modern slavery in supply chains and Supplier contracts and unforeseen events.

Section 1 – General overview

The private sector can play a significant role in reducing modern slavery through trading and investment decisions. Implementing appropriate controls and solutions is a multi-step process involving stakeholders at all levels. A number of solutions exist to assist those seeking to implement policies to identify, mitigate, and remedy these risks.

It is important to understand the legal requirements for anti-slavery efforts at an international, national, and local level. Legal requirements generally take two forms:

requirements for companies to implement and provide progress reports on their anti-slavery efforts; and
bans on the importation of products produced wholly or in part through forced labor.

You are advised to consult local laws before beginning to negotiate or draft an anti-modern slavery plan with suppliers or other stakeholders.

For businesses seeking to address the risk of modern slavery in their supply chains, a compliance system that has oversight and control over every link in the supply chain may be difficult to implement. However, it is important that companies avoid causing or contributing to forced labor. Companies should be able to recognize the situations in which modern slavery may be present and when measures to avoid it may be required.

Section 2 – Definitions and scope

Modern slavery is an umbrella term that includes forced labor, debt bondage, forced marriage, other slavery and slavery-like practices, and human trafficking. According to the International Labor Organization (ILO), the definition includes situations of exploitation where a person cannot refuse or leave because of threats, violence, coercion, deception, or abuse of power.

Forced labor, under the International Forced Labor Convention of 1930 (Article 2.1), which has been ratified by nearly 180 countries, is defined as ‘all work or service which is exacted from any person under the menace of any penalty for which the said person has not offered himself voluntarily.’ Human trafficking, which can lead to forced labor, is defined as ‘recruitment, transportation, transfer, harboring or receipt of persons, by means of threat or use of force or other forms of coercion – for the purpose of exploitation’, according to the United Nations Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children.

According to ILO data, nearly 49.6 million people were living in conditions of modern slavery worldwide in 2021. They include 27.6 million people in situations of forced labor, and 22 million in forced marriage. Of those in forced labor, 12% (more than 3.3 million) are children. While most forced labor occurs in the private sector, there are also 3.9 million people in forced labor imposed by state authorities. Geographically, one report from 2021 lists the countries with the highest rate of prevalence as North Korea, Eritrea, Mauritania, Saudi Arabia, and Turkiye, while the least prevalent rates were found in Switzerland, Norway, Germany, Netherlands, and Sweden (see Walk Free: Global Slavery Index).

Most US companies doing business globally contract with suppliers abroad rather than owning facilities overseas. These companies often have long supply chains with many links between the sources of a product’s component raw materials, such as farms or mines, and the final product. At any point in the chain, there may be workers who are trapped in forced labor or other situations of exploitation.

The US Department of State has implemented the Program to End Modern Slavery, which includes global Intervention Development Research and Developmental Evaluation projects. The aim of the projects is to better understand, design and test potential interventions. The countries being evaluated include Nepal, Thailand, Ethiopia, and Mexico. The projects will be conducted over a number of years, ending as late as 2027, and have goals that include studying human trafficking, aiding the victims of humans trafficking, educating governmental officials, and designing methods of preventing human trafficking. The results of these projects may prove useful to companies seeking to eliminate the risk of modern slavery in their supply chains.

2.1 Recognizing indicators of modern slavery

The ILO has identified several indicators of modern slavery. They fall into two broad categories: indicators of involuntariness and indicators of penalty. The two main questions to ask are:

Did the worker provide his or her consent to work freely and is he or she free to leave?
Has the worker been subjected to a threat or menace of a penalty if he or she refuses to work?

Involuntariness and coercion are rated on a spectrum of severity. To qualify as forced labor, at least one indicator of involuntariness and one indicator (threat) of penalty must be present, and at least one of these indicators must be strong. For instance, abduction of a worker and confiscation of the worker’s identity papers are strong indicators of involuntary and coerced recruitment. Likewise, forcing an undocumented worker to work overtime beyond legal limits and using threats of denunciation of the worker to immigration authorities are strong indicators of involuntariness and penalty. Medium indicators of involuntary and coerced recruitment might be deception regarding working conditions and threats of financial penalties for refusing to take a job. In the example of deception, the working conditions would not likely qualify as forced labor. Additional examples may be found in the ILO’s indicators of forced labor. Businesses can categorize their modern slavery risks into three categories:

abusive practices (outright modern slavery practices or practices which create a risk of modern slavery occurring);
abusive policies; and
policies and practices which create the potential for modern slavery. The presence of involuntariness or penalties are usual indicators of modern slavery practices.

2.1.1 Indicators of involuntariness

Involuntariness is grouped into three categories:

unfree recruitment – this includes forced and deceptive recruitment. Coercive recruitment is when workers are forced to work for a particular employer against their will. Deceptive recruitment is when a person is recruited using false promises about the work (if the worker had been aware of the true working or other conditions, he or she would not have accepted the job);
work and life under duress – this covers adverse working or living conditions imposed on the worker using force, penalty, or the threat of penalty; and
impossibility of leaving an employer – when leaving entails a penalty or risk to the worker, such as the retention of wages, this element is met. It does not include staying in a job because of poverty alone.

2.1.2 Indicators of penalty

Coercion may be applied at any of the above three points of involuntariness by penalty or threat of penalty. The term may include:

threats and violence;
restriction of freedom of movement through isolation, confinement, or surveillance;
debt bondage and accompanying threats against a worker or the worker’s family members – the debt may have been contracted at any time during the work history and without the worker’s consent (eg, an advance payment for travel expenses at recruitment or when the person is already employed);
withholding of wages – a form of coercion where wages or other promised benefits are withheld by an employer to force the worker to work longer than previously agreed;
retention of passport, identity papers, or travel documents – employers retaining these documents and not giving workers access to them upon request is a means of coercion; and
abuse of vulnerability – the knowing exploitation of a worker’s vulnerability in order to force him or her to work is coercion. This includes threats of denunciation of undocumented workers to the authorities or taking advantage of a worker with an intellectual disability. The definition of this type of vulnerability generally does not include the obligation to stay in a job because of poverty alone.

2.1.3 Child forced labor

When it comes to children, the definition of forced labor is slightly different. The ILO defines child forced labor as work performed by children under coercion applied by a third party (other than the child’s parents) either to the child or to the child’s parents. Due to the youth and heightened vulnerability of children, conditions that may not be considered coercion when applied to adults may be regarded as coercion when children are involved.

Section 3 – Legal standards and guidelines

3.1 Mandatory standards

Growing awareness and concern among investors, consumers, governments, and the wider public about modern slavery in supply chains has led to a number of legal developments. For instance, most jurisdictions criminalize direct involvement in forced labor and other forms of modern slavery. A few also impose obligations on businesses to report their efforts to address the risks of being involved, even indirectly, in modern slavery. Some also prohibit the import of products created, or even partially created, with forced labor.

3.1.1 Supplying goods or services to a federal government entity

Contracts to supply goods or services to a federal government entity are subject to strict standards.

The US Federal Acquisition Regulations (48 CFR section 52.222-50) require businesses that receive certain contracts with the federal government to work proactively to prevent human trafficking in their supply chains and to take remedial steps if such activities are identified. As called for in Executive Order 13627, Strengthening Protections Against Trafficking in Persons in Federal Contracts (September 25, 2012), and Title XVII of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (PL 112-239), the regulations impose extensive anti-trafficking measures in federal contracts exceeding $550,000 that are performed outside the United States. For contracts that meet these criteria, the contractor must create a compliance plan with an employee awareness program, a process for employee reporting of violations, and plans for housing, wages, and hours. Further, the contractor must conduct annual due diligence to determine compliance with the plan. For more information see 48 CFR section 52.222-50(h)(5).

Additionally, under federal procurement regulations, federal suppliers must certify that they have made good faith efforts to determine if certain products were produced under forced or indentured child labor. For more information see 48 CFR section 22.1503. Pursuant to Executive Order 13126, Prohibition of Acquisition of Products Produced by Forced or Indentured Child Labor (June 12, 1999), the US Department of Labor (DOL) International Labor Affairs Bureau (ILAB) maintains a List of Products Produced by Forced or Indentured Child Labor. As of July 13, 2022, the list contained 34 products from 26 countries which the DOL 'has a reasonable basis to believe are produced by forced or indentured child labor.' A supplier providing products on this list to a federal government entity must certify its good faith efforts to ensure that the products were not mined, produced, or manufactured with forced or indentured child labor.

3.1.2 Companies required to report to the Securities and Exchange Commission

Any company that is required to make reports with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) must report on ‘conflict minerals’ in its supply chain. Enacted in 2010, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (section 1502, codified at 15 USC section 78m(p)) requires all SEC-listed companies to check their supply chains for tin, tungsten, tantalum, and gold (the 3TG minerals), and to investigate whether these minerals might originate in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) or an adjoining country. If a company finds a potential link, it must take steps to address the risk that the transactions might be funding armed groups or human rights abuses. These companies must disclose their efforts to address these risks annually to the SEC. For more information see 17 CFR section 240.13p-1.

3.1.3 Other mandatory measures

A number of other mandatory measures rely largely on disclosure and publicity to monitor supply chains based on the assumption that the reputational and financial consequences of involvement in forced labor will be extreme for a business.

California Transparency in Supply Chains Act

The California Transparency in Supply Chains Act (Cal Civ Code section 1714.43) imposes general reporting requirements on private sector involvement with modern slavery. Under the California law, which became effective in 2012, covered companies must disclose information regarding their efforts to eliminate human trafficking and slavery within their supply chains. The law applies to all retailers and manufacturers with annual gross revenues of at least $100 million who do business in California. The disclosure requirements are applicable to efforts such as verification of supply chains, audits to ensure compliance with slavery mitigation measures, certification of suppliers, and training of staff and managers to recognize risks. The California law requires companies to report their efforts but falls short of ordering companies to implement slavery mitigation measures beyond the audit and report. For example, see the disclosure made by Target Corporation.

UK Modern Slavery Act

The UK Modern Slavery Act 2015 is based on the California law. It requires covered companies to publish annual statements of the steps taken to eliminate slavery and human trafficking from their operations and supply chains. The UK law applies to companies that do business in the country and that have annual global turnover of £36 million, including foreign subsidiaries of UK companies that produce goods and services sold or used in the UK. Like the California law, the UK law requires disclosure only, including whether the company’s efforts are effective. The UK law also instituted the role of an anti-slavery commissioner, whose job it is to encourage good practices, but who lacks any enforcement authority. See Checklist: UK Modern Slavery Act reporting requirements: Section 54 (UK).

French Duty of Vigilance Law (or Loi sur le devoir de vigilance des grandes entreprises in French)

French Law obliges covered companies to publish and implement plans to prevent serious violations of human rights, fundamental freedoms, and safety of people and the environment. It applies to any company with at least 5,000 employees in France and to French-based companies with 10,000 employees worldwide.

Other reporting regimes

Other reporting regimes are found in Australia’s Modern Slavery Act 2018, the European Union’s Non-Financial Reporting Directive and Conflict Minerals Regulation, Germany’s Due Diligence in Supply Chains Law (effective 1 January 2023), and Norway’s Transparency Act, among others.

Brazil created a public register of employers who have engaged in forced labor (defined as conditions analogous to slavery) in Ordinance No. 540/2004. The list is published on the website of Brazil’s Ministry of Labor and the non-governmental organization, Repórter Brasil. Employers on the dirty list remain there for two years, during which time they cannot access public financing and most banks refuse to extend them credit. Fines may also be imposed. If, after two years of monitoring, the employer has not committed any further offenses, they will be removed from the dirty list.

3.2 Bans on imports

The are some measures in place that provide for a complete ban on the importation of goods produced wholly or partly through modern slavery.

The United States amended Section 307 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 USC section 1307) to strengthen the ability of US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to confiscate international imports when information reasonably indicates that merchandise was mined, produced, or manufactured (wholly or in part) by forced or indentured labor. For more information see 19 CFR section 12.42. If the CBP determines that imported items were produced with forced labor in violation of the Tariff Act, it will publish a formal finding in the Customs Bulletin and the Federal Register.

The Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act 2015 (TFTA) (PL 114–125) closed a loophole in the Tariff Act that allowed the import of goods involving the use of forced labor if they were not available domestically in quantities sufficient to meet domestic ‘consumptive demand’. The CBP has stepped up enforcement since that amendment, issuing nearly 30 ‘withhold release orders’ (WROs) barring entry of goods made by forced labor between 2016 and 2021 (as compared to zero WROs between 2000 and 2015). See 19 CFR section 12.42(e).

Similarly, Canada amended its Customs Tariff (item 9897.00.00) to ban commercial importation of goods that are mined, manufactured, or produced wholly or in part by forced labor. The European Parliament is also considering the imposition of a ban on the importation to the European Union of goods produced through modern slavery.

3.3 Regional requirements

A number of regional requirements address trade with individual countries. For instance, the Countering America’s Adversaries through Sanctions Act (CAATSA) (PL 115-44), enacted in 2017, includes provisions on the entry into the United States of merchandise with a nexus to North Korean nationals or citizens. Under CAATSA section 321(b) (codified at 22 USC section 9241a), any significant merchandise mined, produced, or manufactured wholly or in part by North Korean nationals or citizens is prohibited from entry into the United States unless the CBP finds, through clear and convincing evidence, that the merchandise was not produced with a form of prohibited labor.

The United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement (USMCA) became effective in July 2020. It prohibits importation among the three countries of goods produced wholly or partly by forced labor, including child labor.

In January 2021, the CBP issued a Withhold Release Order (WRO) detaining all tomato and cotton products from the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (XUAR) of China. The CBP reported that its investigation identified forced labor indicators for these products from the XUAR, including debt bondage, restriction of movement, isolation, intimidation and threats, withholding of wages, and abusive living and working conditions. The CBP typically issues WROs to specific manufacturers and producers. However, it also has the power to issue broader industry and countrywide orders.

Canada has also introduced measures to combat the repression of the Uyghur people in the XUAR. As of July 2020, Canadian companies associated with Xinjiang must sign a declaration affirming that they:

abide by all relevant laws;
respect human rights;
seek to meet or exceed the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises and the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights (OHCHR) Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights;
do not directly or indirectly source products from Chinese entities implicated in forced labor or other human rights violations related to the XUAR; and
commit to conduct due diligence on suppliers in China to ensure there are no such linkages.

The requirement applies to Canadian companies that source from Xinjiang (directly or indirectly), are established in Xinjiang, or are seeking to engage in the Xinjiang market. Companies that refuse to sign the declaration will not receive any services or support from the Canadian Trade Commission.

3.4 Guidelines and policies

A number of international standards have been published to serve as guidelines for good business practice and models for codes of conduct to be inserted in supplier agreements. Below are some examples of these publications and resources.

3.4.1 OECD

The OECD published Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises that include human rights recommendations, such as addressing adverse human rights impacts in which enterprises are involved, avoiding causing or contributing to them, and seeking ways to prevent or mitigate those that are linked to their business operations, products, or services. The OECD has also published Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Business Conduct, which provides enterprises with practical support regarding the implementation of the recommendations found in the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises.

3.4.2 United Nations OHCHR

The United Nations OHCHR Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights outline the corporate duty to respect human rights, which exists independently of the ability or willingness of individual countries to fulfill their own human rights obligations.

3.4.3 ILO

The ILO has issued the Tripartite Declaration of Principles Concerning Multinational Enterprises and Social Policy. Its goal is to guide governments, employers’ and workers’ organizations, and multinational enterprises to ‘encourage the positive contribution which multinational enterprises can make to economic and social progress and the realization of decent work for all’.

3.4.4 Industry associations

Many industry associations, including those for electronics, gold and sugarcane, have basic policies to which member companies must adhere. For instance, the electronics industry’s Responsible Business Alliance has as a component of its Standards and Accountability a mandatory Code of Conduct aimed at social, environmental, and ethical responsibility of supply chains. The Code of Conduct includes mandatory assessments for onsite compliance verification. The countries with the most categories of goods produced through forced labor are China, Burma, India, and North Korea. The DOL ILAB also produces a web page containing its most recent reports and lists, enabling research by region, country, risk level, goods, and type of exploitation. It also includes information on applicable laws and ratifications of international standards.

Additionally, the non-profit organization Verité publishes a Commodity Atlas identifying specific commodities and their relationship to forced labor. It covers items such as coltan, tungsten, and tin, which are often produced with child labor and/or forced labor in countries such as the Democratic Republic of Congo, Bolivia, and Indonesia, for ultimate import to countries including the United States and the United Kingdom.

Businesses may also consider obtaining advice from customs experts, such as brokers, trade attorneys, or customs consultants, potentially including audits, to evaluate supply chain risks. The CBP also offers administrative rulings on prospective transactions. See 19 CFR part 177.

Section 4 – Due diligence

Compliance with standards regarding modern slavery in supply chains requires that an organization exercise due diligence on a continuous basis. The fluidity of modern supply chains means that a supplier who is compliant with labor standards today could be replaced tomorrow by one not in compliance. Due diligence will allow your company to take steps to stay compliant with the requirements of the law and mitigate the risks of non-compliance.

4.1 Identifying risks

The first step in due diligence is to identify the areas that present a risk of non-compliance. Dealing with certain products and countries, as discussed above, will trigger legal requirements due to the known risks of slavery. Modern slavery is present in a number of industries and it is essential to know which ones are most problematic. Industries that pose the greatest risks include:

The manufacture of clothing or other wearing apparel;
The manufacture of electronic devices, such as computers or mobile phones;
Agriculture, especially the growing of cocoa or sugar cane; and
Commercial fishing.

For example, in Nestlé USA, Inc, v John Doe, former child laborers brought a suit against the domestic corporations Nestle, Inc., and Cargill, Inc. under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS). The ATS grants federal district courts original jurisdiction over a civil action where an alien sues for a tort committed in violation of the laws of the United States (28 USC sec 1350). The plaintiffs alleged that defendants Nestle and Cargill aided and abetted child slave labor in sourcing their cocoa from the Ivory Coast. In a 8-1 decision the Supreme Court denied the plaintiffs’ claims under the ATS, but only due to the issue of extraterritorial jurisdiction. The Court held that ‘general corporate activity’ on US soil that leads to the use of forced child labor in the supply chain does not overcome the presumption against extraterritoriality. However, as seen in the Court’s opinion and multiple recent cases filed under the Trafficking Victim Protection Act (TVPA), 22 USC chapter 78, domestic corporations continue to be vulnerable to suits for human rights violations in their supply chains through other avenues. Indeed, Justices Sotomayor, Kagan and Breyer all indicated that a similar case could be brought under the TVPA.

Industries that rely on seasonal or temporary labor, or that use a large number of migratory workers, may also pose risks of modern slavery. An organization dealing with suppliers in these industries should be prepared to scrutinize suppliers’ labor and recruitment practices.

Another example is the recent Doe v Apple Inc, 96 F 4th 403 (DC Cir 2024), which is an important illustration of how courts are interpreting and apportioning liability in human rights supply chain cases. In this particular lawsuit, a group of plaintiffs alleged that several of the world’s most prominent technology corporations (Apple, Alphabet, Dell Technologies, Microsoft, and Tesla) bore legal responsibility for their alleged involvement with cobalt mining operations in the Democratic Republic of Congo. In that country, the use or endorsement of child labor was pervasive. Beyond the main claim brought under the TVPRA, the plaintiffs also pursued related causes of action, including unjust enrichment, negligent supervision, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, all of the claims being predicated on the existence of this alleged venture.

The DC Circuit Court unequivocally upheld the lower court's decision to dismiss all claims against the defendant companies. The court clarified that a ’venture,’ within the context of the TVPRA, calls for a relationship that extends beyond a mere ’ordinary buyer-seller transaction.’ The court held that simply acquiring a commodity, without additional demonstrated involvement, does not meet the statutory requirement for ’participation in a venture.’ As a result, the plaintiffs' legal challenge faltered at the pleading stage, as they failed to adequately articulate a claim that met this crucial standard.

Furthermore, the Apple court addressed the plaintiffs' arguments regarding the defendants' alleged influence over their suppliers. The court found that neither the potential leverage held by the technology companies (such as their ability to threaten cessation of purchasing agreements) nor their purported contractual right to conduct third-party audits of supplier labor practices constituted the degree of ‘control’ necessary to establish a qualifying ‘venture’. This aspect of the ruling is particularly significant, as it sets out the boundaries of ‘actionable control’ in complex global supply chains.

In addition, as a result of the court’s conclusion that no ’venture’ existed under the TVPRA, the supplementary claims—all of which were necessarily dependent on the existence of such a venture—also failed to withstand scrutiny.

The Apple decision offers valuable insights for companies navigating the complexities of performing human rights due diligence in their supply chains. The case establishes a clear framework for defending TVPRA claims, emphasizing that direct, active involvement in an alleged harmful operation is required, rather than just a commercial purchasing relationship. Moreover, the ruling provides a measure of reassurance for corporations that their proactive efforts to eradicate forced labor from their supply chains, such as engaging in third-party audits of supplier practices, may not, in themselves, be subsequently used as evidence to establish their direct culpability or participation in an illegal venture.

According to the 2023 Global Slavery Index, the ten countries that have the highest incidence of modern slavery are:

North Korea
Eritrea
Mauritania
Saudi Arabia
Turkey
Tajikistan
United Arab Emirates
Russia
Afghanistan
Kuwait

4.2 Mitigating risks

Where risks or actual violations are identified, mitigation measures are required. These measures usually involve using market leverage to influence supplier conduct. Ideally, the investigation of suppliers is carried out before contracts are executed. This pre-contracting investigation enables the use of contractual requirements, such as training and reporting or monitoring for risks of forced labor. But risks can be mitigated at various other stages of the supplier relationship, such as setting qualifications for bidding, renewing contracts, and the disbursement of funds.

4.2.1 Code of conduct

Company executives should work closely with compliance and procurement departments to adopt a code of conduct for the company and its suppliers. A company may also need to beef up its compliance personnel to include specialists in supply chain due diligence and applicable standards on modern slavery risks. As mentioned above, several guides and ready-made codes of conduct exist. A code of conduct should set out the labor standards with which a company and its suppliers promise to comply. It should be a public document, appearing on the company website and in supplier contracts and workplaces where workers can review it.

A code of conduct should be tailored to the needs and risks of the company and its suppliers. The code might include measures such as:

commitment to international and national labor standards;
mandatory reporting of breaches of labor laws;
an effective internal grievance procedure, including whistleblower protections;
the right to conduct independent site assessments of supplier working conditions;
the right to terminate or suspend supplier contracts for persistent or serious labor violations;
obligations on each supplier to submit and regularly update downstream supplier maps; and
mandatory and regular training of all levels of supplier management and staff in applicable labor laws and the code of conduct.

Ongoing training and communication should be a part of any mitigation strategy. Thus, the code of conduct should include proactive measures such as training of procurement and compliance managers and staff within the company and supply chain partners. Where possible, the company can also work with suppliers to develop grievance reporting and feedback mechanisms that allow workers to report anonymously on working conditions. The goal is to create a culture of compliance within the company and its suppliers.

4.3 Remediation

Many of the legal frameworks described above require businesses to make good faith efforts to ensure that supply chains are free of modern slavery.

When a business discovers that it is linked to modern slavery through a supplier, it may be tempted to simply cut all ties with that supplier. However, the business should also consider what remediation measures it can take.

The contractual relationship between buyer and supplier creates an opportunity for remediation. Suppliers who violate a code of conduct should be given a chance to improve, but they should understand that persistent violations may result in termination of the business relationship. Depending on the size of the contract and its importance to the supplier, the supplier may have an incentive to improve its labor practices to keep the contract. The business should also consider whether the supplier can resolve the situation by itself or whether government authorities or other organizations must be involved. Remediation should protect the workers who are victims of the violation from further harm and incorporate means of preventing further abuses.

At this point, it may be helpful to involve outsider experts in the process of remediation. For example, the Issara Institute is a non-profit organization working on the remediation of modern slavery in Southeast Asia. According to one of its case studies, Issara helped a buyer who discovered that one of its suppliers was involved with labor brokers who used forced labor. Through Issara's intervention, the supplier and several of the broker’s other clients cut ties with the broker, the broker was placed on a blacklist, and some of the affected workers received remediation.

4.4 Monitoring and evaluation

Supplier compliance should be monitored and reported on. One option is for suppliers to be contractually required to disclose risks and actions (along the lines of the legal requirements in the UK and California, for instance). It may be helpful to involve outside organizations with expert understanding of the risks by country and sector to monitor and report on supplier working conditions. Digital worker reporting tools are under development to enable better collection of data on violations. These can also be valuable in workplaces otherwise lacking oversight.

Additional resources

Social Responsibility Alliance – an initiative focused on providing companies with open-source tools, resources, and support to build socially responsible supply chains.
Issara Institute, Updated Guide to Ethics and Human Rights in Anti-Trafficking: Ethical Standards for Working with Migrant Workers and Trafficked Persons in the Digital Age – advice on best actions to maximize positive human rights impacts and minimize negative impacts in supply chain relationships.
US Customs and Border Protection, Supply Chain Due Diligence – a brief overview of the need for and methods to institute a comprehensive and transparent social compliance system for companies importing goods to the United States.
US Department of State Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons, Trafficking in Persons Report – provides annual data on human trafficking worldwide and ranks minimum standards compliance country by country.
US Department of Labor International Labor Affairs Bureau,List of Goods Produced by Child Labor or Forced Labor – a list of goods and their source countries which ILAB has reason to believe are produced by child labor or forced labor in violation of international standards.
US Department of Labor International Labor Affairs Bureau, List of Products Produced by Forced or Indentured Child Labor – a list of products and their source countries which ILAB has reason to believe are produced by forced or indentured child labor; the list is intended to ensure that US federal agencies do not procure goods made by forced or indentured child labor.
US Department of Labor International Labor Affairs Bureau’s three flagship reports: Findings on the Worst Forms of Child Labor.
US Department of Labor International Labor Affairs Bureau, Business Tools for Labor Compliance in Global Supply Chains, a web page providing a step-by-step guide on critical elements of social compliance, designed for companies that do not have a social compliance system in place or those needing to strengthen their existing systems.
Verité, Commodity Atlas – a compendium of specific commodities and their relationship to forced labor and other forms of exploitation at the base of global supply chains.
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises – principles and standards for responsible business conduct in a global context under applicable laws and internationally recognized standards.
United Nations Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights, Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights – guidelines on upholding and promoting human rights for transnational corporations and other business enterprises.
International Labor Organization, Tripartite Declaration of Principles Concerning Multinational Enterprises and Social Policy – a guide for governments, employers’ and workers’ organizations of home and host countries, and multinational enterprises in taking measures and actions and adopting social policies.