The starting point is to establish a due diligence obligation for entities operating in the Asia-Pacific to report on and take action to address the risk of forced labour in their supply chains. Due diligence obligations should extend beyond Tier 1 suppliers to include at least second-tier subcontractors, with additional tiers added as capacity develops. The European Union’s Forced Labour Regulation (Opens in new window) provides one possible reference point. These obligations could take the form of binding regulations where institutions allow, be phased in elsewhere, or be jointly implemented through regional bodies such as ASEAN where unilateral action isn’t realistic.
Any due diligence obligations should move the evidentiary bar from attestation to verification. Auditors provide one means of verification, but they should be supported by remote auditing technologies (Opens in new window) to identify high-risk regions, sectors, and products. This could include, for example, using satellite-based vessel monitoring to flag fishing vessels that operate without required tracking. Incorporating remote monitoring technology can provide coverage that in-person auditing cannot match. It could also, for example, be used to determine when and where unannounced audits should be performed.
Poor performance also requires consequences. As Australia’s Commissioner found, disclosure without penalty can produce polished reports (Opens in new window) that do not necessarily improve conditions on the ground. The ability to enforce due diligence obligations will be critical, particularly given the weak enforcement of many existing laws in parts of the Asia-Pacific region. Enforcement can scale with capacity, such as public disclosure of non-compliance, procurement blacklisting, fines, and criminal penalties. One starting point to develop local capacity is to work with NGOs and other countries implementing forced labour due diligence requirements.
Sector- and region-specific risk data is needed to underpin these initiatives, along the lines of the database (Opens in new window) required under Article 8 of the EU’s Forced Labour Regulation. Governments, regional associations, industry bodies, and non-governmental organisations already produce data to begin populating the database. For example, the International Labour Organisation (Opens in new window), Human Rights Watch (Opens in new window), and Goodweave (Opens in new window) produce relevant information, but key data is scattered across NGO reports, foreign customs filings, and other sources. Pooling this data across the Asia-Pacific is not contingent on any one country’s political system or capacity, making it a realistic starting point for collaboration.
None of this would stop the next tariff dispute. As the recent action by the US has shown, supply chain due diligence does not change a government’s incentives to use trade leverage. But making these changes could support real progress in reducing the millions of people in forced labour throughout the Asia-Pacific. Whatever the outcome of the challenge at the Court of International Trade, it is time for action to reduce forced labour.
Leave a comment