Cotton Campaign
  • About
    • Who We Are
    • Uzbekistan's Forced Labor Problem >
      • Reports
      • Chronicle of Forced Labor
      • Photos/Video
      • FAQs
    • Turkmenistan's Forced Labor Problem >
      • Reports of Forced Labor in Turkmenistan's Cotton Sector
    • Forced Labor Cotton in Other Countries
    • Contact
  • Countries
    • Turkmenistan
    • Uzbekistan >
      • Uzbek Forum Key Findings 2020
    • Governments >
      • What other governments can do
    • International Organizations >
      • What the World Bank and Asian Development Bank can do
      • What the International Labor Organization can do
    • Companies >
      • What companies operating in Uzbekistan or Turkmenistan can do
      • What companies that use cotton can do
      • What investors can do
  • Take Action
  • Media
    • Press Releases >
      • A Changing Landscape in Uzbek Cotton Production
      • Bennett Freeman Remarks at ILO Roundtable
    • News
    • Videos
  • Blog

Blog

Is slave-picked cotton tainting UK businesses' supply chains?

9/8/2015

0 Comments

 
Thomson Reuters Foundation published this article originally on September 8, 2015
by Klara Skrivankova, Europe Programme and Advocacy Co-ordinator at Anti-Slavery International
Last week the cotton harvests started in Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan. It is expected that as in previous years, the crop will be picked by state sponsored forced labour on a mass scale. Events like these test the preparedness of British businesses for their new duty to report on their efforts to eradicate slavery from their supply chains.

Under the transparency in supply chains provision in the Modern Slavery Act, UK registered businesses with annual turnover over £36 million will be required to publish a statement indicating what they are doing to address forced labour in their supply chains.

To report is all that is required. Parts of the government have been keen to point out to businesses just how little will be required of them and that its primary intention is not to overburden businesses with reporting.

No formal monitoring or review mechanism is attached to the transparency provision, nor has the government agreed to create a central government repository for the reports, as it believes that the accuracy of the company reports is best assessed by civil society and consumers.

There are two fundamental flaws in this approach:  First, it is not the responsibility of the populus to police the implementation of a law. Second, even if this approach were appropriate, much business is not consumer facing and so there are even fewer possibilities for ethically engaged consumers to pressurise for change. For example, commodity traders or suppliers of components for diverse retail goods may act with considerable impunity irrespective of how egregious the human rights abuses in their supply chains may be.

Cotton is one such commodity through which traders - some of whom are UK based – may play a part in perpetuating global slavery. The fifth and seventh largest cotton exporting countries in the world are Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan. Both countries have historically used forced labour to produce and harvest cotton.

Unlike in other countries in which there is a considerable risk of forced labour in the supply chain, such as Bangladesh or India, it is not unscrupulous businessmen behind forced labour in Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan. The governments of these countries have systematically coerced their own citizens to cultivate and pick cotton under threat of punishment.

The vast profits from the sale of cotton benefit a small elite rather than the people of the country. Forced labour of their own citizens has been accompanied with sustained campaigns to silence anyone who tries to document forced labour and publicise the abuses abroad.

Last year, millions of teachers, doctors and nurses were forced into the cotton fields in Uzbekistan, leaving essential services decimated. This year we are unlikely to see much change. Nurses in one district were required by the hospital management to sign documents stating that they will voluntarily agree to go to the cotton harvest. At the same time, they had to sign an undated resignation letter that would be used if they fail to turn up for the harvest.

The Uzbek government buys all the cotton at a price it sets and sells it on international markets with huge profits. While most Uzbek cotton is sold to China and Bangladesh, some European traders, such as the Liverpool based Cargill Cotton, which confirms on its website that it sources from Central Asia, continue to purchase cotton that has a huge risk of being produced through slavery. 

Even international businesses that do not trade in cotton or cotton products, but have business operations in Uzbekistan, are also at risk of contributing to and profiting from forced labour. Workers at General Motors Uzbekistan have reported that for several years, their company has sent them to the cotton harvest. Scandinavian telecommunications companies Teliasonera and Telenor reported that they sponsored the cotton harvest in Uzbekistan. Campaigners understand that the requirement to contribute financially to the cotton harvest applies to all multinational companies that operate in Uzbekistan.

The Modern Slavery Act, for all its flaws, can still have a very positive effect on how British business operates. But to achieve that, the government needs to step up its game for the implementation of the Act and change how it communicates with British businesses about the risks of slavery.

The soon-to-be published guidance for businesses on the implementation of the transparency provision should not only encourage good practice in eradicating slavery in business operations, but also direct businesses to independent sources of information about places and commodities at risk. The government should also amend the Overseas Business Risk Information to include information about forced labour in Turkmenistan and put Uzbekistan on the list.

But most importantly, the British government ought to clearly communicate to the governments of Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan that they need to stop the enslavement of their own citizens, rather than only promote trading with both countries.

It remains to be seen if the British government grasps these opportunities, or satisfies itself with polite words that compel no change in business practices that keep millions across the world enslaved.
0 Comments



Leave a Reply.

    Archives

    February 2020
    January 2019
    September 2018
    August 2018
    June 2017
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    August 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013
    August 2013
    June 2013
    April 2013
    March 2013
    February 2013
    January 2013
    December 2012
    October 2012
    September 2012
    August 2012
    July 2012
    June 2012
    May 2012
    April 2012
    March 2012
    February 2012
    January 2012
    December 2011
    November 2011
    October 2011
    September 2011
    August 2011
    July 2011
    June 2011
    May 2011
    April 2011
    March 2011
    February 2011
    June 2010
    May 2010
    April 2010
    March 2010
    February 2010
    December 2009
    November 2009
    October 2009
    September 2009
    August 2009
    July 2009
    June 2009
    May 2009
    November 2007

    Categories

    All

CONTACT: Cotton Campaign Coordinator - c/o International Labor Rights Forum, 1634 I Street NW, Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20006. 
+1 202-347-4100, cottoncampaigncoordinator [at] gmail.com
  • About
    • Who We Are
    • Uzbekistan's Forced Labor Problem >
      • Reports
      • Chronicle of Forced Labor
      • Photos/Video
      • FAQs
    • Turkmenistan's Forced Labor Problem >
      • Reports of Forced Labor in Turkmenistan's Cotton Sector
    • Forced Labor Cotton in Other Countries
    • Contact
  • Countries
    • Turkmenistan
    • Uzbekistan >
      • Uzbek Forum Key Findings 2020
    • Governments >
      • What other governments can do
    • International Organizations >
      • What the World Bank and Asian Development Bank can do
      • What the International Labor Organization can do
    • Companies >
      • What companies operating in Uzbekistan or Turkmenistan can do
      • What companies that use cotton can do
      • What investors can do
  • Take Action
  • Media
    • Press Releases >
      • A Changing Landscape in Uzbek Cotton Production
      • Bennett Freeman Remarks at ILO Roundtable
    • News
    • Videos
  • Blog