British-born actress and human rights campaigner Julia Ormond is calling on the business community to "leverage its influence" in the fight against human trafficking.
Hollywood star Ormond, a former goodwill ambassador for the United Nations, says companies should "pour resources into [developing] a really viable, systemic solution" for ridding their supply chains of trafficked or enslaved labour.
The appeal comes in the wake of the California Transparency in Supply Chains Act, which came into force in January 2012. The law, which is the first of its kind in the world, requires high-revenue companies doing business in California to report publicly on their efforts to eliminate slavery and human trafficking in their supply chains.
Ormond describes the act, which she helped lobby for, as a "catalyst step" towards promoting greater corporate disclosure and ultimately towards creating a robust system of slavery-free product certification.
"What we were aiming for was to deliver as much accountability as we could around forced labour issues in a way that was both doable and scalable," she says.
Positive, but watered down
While labour rights and anti-trafficking campaigners have broadly welcomed the act, which is the first of its kind in the world, some are frustrated at the pace of change.
Ormond herself concedes that claims about the legislation being watered down and lacking teeth represent "legitimate opinion". In its initial draft, for instance, the bill had stipulated that companies generating $2m or more from business conducted in California should be subjected to it.
When it finally passed, the bar for inclusion had leapt to $100m. "I mean, what happened to $25m or $50m?" asks Ormond, who now lives and works in Los Angeles.
Campaigners believe the legislation could have gone further in other respects too. In its current guise, for example, the law only applies to the retail and manufacturing sectors.
Activist such as Stephanie Richard, policy and legal services director at the Coalition against Slavery and Trafficking, a US non-profit, would like to see it expand to the services industry too.
Then there are questions of legal clarity. To date, California's attorney general's office has failed to offer official guidance on contested aspects of the legislation, such as whether subsidiary companies are liable or what constitutes adequate public disclosure.
Uncertainty still surrounds precisely how many companies the law affects, with estimates running from 1,000 to over 3,000.
Calls on the attorney general and the California franchise tax board to publish an authoritative list have so far gone unheard, says Richard. "They decided that it was private and confidential information because of our tax code, which was a blow to the advocacy community to put pressure on those companies that should be complying if we don't know who exactly should be complying."
Anti-trafficking groups wish the law had more teeth. At present, companies merely need to make a statement on their website or their annual report on trafficking.
As Shawn MacDonald, director of programmes and research at the fair labour organisation Verité, says: "You can even say on your website, 'We don't do anything on this' and then you are in legal compliance."
If companies fail to meet even this basic disclosure requirement, then the state's attorney general can oblige them to make a public statement, known as an "injunctive release". No such action has been taken so far. Nor does the law provide for fines or other penalties in cases of non-compliance – an oversight that most campaign groups would like to see corrected.
What companies say
MacDonald concedes that companies may well be doing more than their public disclosures suggest. Unlike corporate responsibility reports, which are typically voluntary and therefore less exposed to legal scrutiny, the transparency act requirements are mandated by statute. That has brought the lawyers to the table, he said. "Many companies, even if they are doing something on this, might be taking a relatively conservative approach to what they say."
Ormond believes the low-bar for compliance is not bad – it helped get the bill into law. "What we wanted was something that business could not refute," she says, noting that the law can be modified to include disclosure requirements in the future.
David Arkless, co-chair of the Global Business Coalition Against Trafficking (GBCat), agrees. "Even though it doesn't have that many sharp fangs … it's had a fundamental impact on business.". He describes gBCAT , which counts global brands such as ExxonMobil, Ford, Manpower and Microsoft among its members, as a specific response to the legislation.
US corporate leaders are now at least prepared to talk about trafficking, he adds. "Before the ... act and they'd say, '... talk to the CSR department.' Now we get the attention at the top of organisations."
Even those who are critical of business progress admit the act has helped flush out a small band of leaders from the private sector. David Batstone, co-founder and president of the advocacy group Not for Sale, puts the likes of communications technology firm Juniper Networks, US retailer Safeway and fashion brand Eileen Fisher among this vocal minority. "Over half the companies have not done much to comply with the California bill … So it's important to have the legislation, but without private sector engagement and self-advocacy, I don't think we're going to get as far down the field as we need to be," he said.
One sign that companies could be beginning to take practical steps is demand for due diligence services and supply chain expertise. MacDonald at Verité notes a sharp increase in uptake for the organisation's supply chain auditing, research and training programmes.
Likewise, business-led initiatives such as GBCat and its sister organisation End Human Trafficking Now report a rise in demand for their e-learning and software solutions.
An act to follow
Earlier this year, members of the US House of Representatives, Carolyn Maloney and John Carter, introduced the bipartisan Human Trafficking Reporting Act in an attempt to get similar legislation onto the federal statute books. A parallel proposal is currently before the Senate as well.
Legislators in the UK are also taking note. The government is currently considering a Modern Slavery Act that could potentially require all UK companies with annual revenues of over £100m to publicly disclose their anti-trafficking policies and performance. Andrew Wallis, chief executive of the UK anti-trafficking advocacy group Unseen, believes the requirement could be adopted as early as September.
Baroness Mary Goudie, a leading campaigner on anti-trafficking, is also cautiously optimistic that the UK government may follow California's lead. "The government needs to do it in next Queen's speech if they are really serious about it," she said.
This content is brought to you by Guardian Professional. To get more articles like this direct to your inbox, sign up free to become a member of the Global Development Professionals Network
Comments (…)
Sign in or create your Guardian account to join the discussion