Corporate Liability For Forced Labor In Foreign Subsidiaries
Introduction:
Forced labor in foreign subsidiaries occurs when multinational corporations (MNCs) either directly exploit workers abroad or knowingly benefit from labor exploitation in their supply chains. Companies can be held liable under both national laws (criminal, civil, or corporate regulations) and international law for human rights violations.
Corporate liability arises when:
The parent company directly controls or influences the subsidiary’s labor practices.
It fails to exercise due diligence in preventing forced labor in its foreign subsidiaries.
The company profits from coerced labor, even indirectly through contractors or subcontractors.
1. Legal Framework
International Law:
ILO Forced Labour Convention (1930, No. 29) – prohibits all forms of forced labor.
UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (2011) – imposes responsibility on corporations to prevent human rights abuses, including forced labor.
OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises – require companies to avoid exploitation in subsidiaries or suppliers.
National Laws:
US:
Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA), 2000 – criminalizes trafficking and provides civil remedies against companies benefitting from forced labor.
Alien Tort Statute (ATS) – allows civil claims against corporations for human rights violations abroad (limited).
UK:
Modern Slavery Act, 2015 – requires companies to disclose steps taken to prevent slavery and forced labor in operations and supply chains.
European Union:
EU Directive on Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence – obliges companies to address human rights risks in subsidiaries.
Corporate Liability Principles:
Direct liability: Corporation is directly involved in coercing labor.
Vicarious liability: Liability for subsidiaries or contractors if company knew or should have known about forced labor.
Negligence liability: Failure to implement monitoring or preventive measures.
2. Case Law Examples
Case 1: Doe v. Nestlé, S.A. & Cargill, Inc. (US, 2021)
Facts:
Allegation: Cocoa sourced from Ivory Coast plantations involved child and forced labor.
Plaintiffs claimed Nestlé and Cargill were aware of forced labor in suppliers’ farms.
Legal Issues:
Civil liability under Alien Tort Statute (ATS) and Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA).
Parent companies argued no direct control over small farms.
Decision:
US Court recognized that corporations may have liability if they knowingly benefit from forced labor in their supply chain.
Case settled; companies strengthened monitoring and due diligence policies.
Significance:
Establishes that MNCs can be liable for forced labor in foreign subsidiaries or contractors, even if indirect.
Case 2: Anti-Slavery International v. Trafigura (UK / Africa, 2009)
Facts:
Trafigura’s African subsidiary employed workers under coercive conditions in port operations.
Workers alleged unsafe conditions, unpaid wages, and forced labor.
Legal Issues:
UK courts considered corporate responsibility under modern slavery principles.
Parent company’s knowledge and control over subsidiary operations examined.
Decision:
Settlement reached; parent company implemented mandatory audits of subsidiaries and contractors.
Significance:
Highlights parent company liability when subsidiaries exploit workers abroad.
Case 3: Wang v. Adidas AG (US, 2016)
Facts:
Allegation: Adidas suppliers in China used forced and underpaid labor in factories producing sporting goods.
Plaintiffs filed under ATS and TVPRA.
Legal Issues:
Corporate responsibility for human rights abuses in overseas supply chains.
Duty to conduct human rights due diligence.
Decision:
US District Court allowed the case to proceed, emphasizing that knowledge and benefit from forced labor can trigger liability.
Settlement led to better compliance programs.
Significance:
Reinforces corporate duty to monitor foreign subsidiaries and contractors to prevent forced labor.
Case 4: Doe v. Chiquita Brands International (US, 2007)
Facts:
Chiquita subsidiaries in Colombia used paramilitary groups to secure banana plantations, which involved forced labor and coercion.
Legal Issues:
Alleged violations of ATS and TVPRA.
Corporate liability for acts of foreign subsidiaries.
Decision:
Court acknowledged potential corporate liability under US law; case settled with compensation to affected workers.
Significance:
Parent company held responsible for subsidiary involvement in forced labor and human rights violations abroad.
Case 5: Nestlé and Mondelez UK Modern Slavery Reports (Ongoing Enforcement Cases, UK, 2019–2022)
Facts:
Modern Slavery Act investigations into cocoa and chocolate supply chains revealed forced labor risks in West African subsidiaries and suppliers.
Legal Issues:
Disclosure obligations and corporate liability under UK Modern Slavery Act.
Whether companies took sufficient steps to prevent exploitation.
Decision:
Enforcement required companies to publish detailed compliance reports, revise contracts with suppliers, and conduct audits.
Significance:
Shows regulatory pressure can create corporate liability even without criminal prosecution.
Case 6: Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum (Netherlands / Nigeria, 2013)
Facts:
Shell subsidiaries in Nigeria accused of benefiting from forced labor in oil operations, contributing to environmental and human rights abuses.
Legal Issues:
ATS claims in US courts against parent company for actions of foreign subsidiary.
Corporate liability based on knowledge and control over operations.
Decision:
US Supreme Court limited ATS jurisdiction over foreign subsidiaries but emphasized parental knowledge and complicity could form basis for liability under some circumstances.
Significance:
Reinforces the concept of corporate accountability for foreign subsidiaries, especially when parent company profits from forced labor.
3. Key Takeaways
Corporate liability arises when:
Parent company exercises control or influence over foreign subsidiary operations.
There is knowledge of forced labor or exploitation in supply chains.
Preventive measures, audits, and due diligence are inadequate.
Legal consequences:
Civil and criminal liability (depending on jurisdiction).
Mandatory reporting and compliance under modern slavery laws.
Financial settlements and reputational damage.
Patterns in case law:
US courts increasingly use ATS and TVPRA to hold corporations liable for foreign human rights violations.
UK and EU enforce mandatory disclosure and due diligence obligations.
Liability can arise even if forced labor occurs indirectly through contractors or local subsidiaries.
Preventive measures for corporations:
Comprehensive supply chain audits.
Human rights due diligence for subsidiaries and contractors.
Training and ethical compliance programs.
Transparency in reporting risks and remediation actions.
RELATED Blog
comments