A 15-year-old boy working alongside a teenage girl at an artisanal and small-scale mine in Odahu, Amansie West district, Ghana. Credit: Juliane Kippenberg/Human Rights Watch

By Juliane Kippenberg
BERLIN, Jun 29 2021 (IPS)

Many products these days come with the promise that workers and communities all along their supply line  are protected from abuse  under a particular standard or code of conduct. Since the United Nations adopted the Guiding Principles for Business and Human Rights a decade ago, a plethora of such certification systems have emerged, including for  mining  and connected industries ranging from cars to jewelry and electronics.

For mining and mineral sourcing alone, companies can pick from at least 17 standards— some apply to all minerals, and others to certain ones.  The standards seek to promote respect for human rights or the environment, and companies carrying the label are  checked periodically for their performance under the standard by an audit company.

A strong certification standard should give civil society and industry representative equal representation on its decision-making body. They should require adherence to the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights and other relevant human rights law

But some of these systems aren’t worth as much to consumers or workers in the supply chain as one might hope.  A certification standard is voluntary and usually owned and managed by a separate certification body. Many entail only superficial human rights inspections and lack transparency because decision-making bodies for these systems are often dominated by industry representatives.

The standards are often broad and vague. Compliance is not always checked rigorously. For example, audits of companies in the gold supply chain often are done by someone at a desk and don’t  include on-the-ground checks of conditions in the  mines.

For instance, the London Bullion Market Association—the certification body for gold refineries—has certified gold refineries with serious human rights  abuses, including violence against local residents by mine security personnel in Tanzania, and conflict-related abuses in Sudan. The Association responded by saying it is committed to “continuous improvement.”

Certification bodies often don’t share information on why a company received certification including whom they interviewed and  any weaknesses they identified.  For example, the Responsible Jewellery Council (RJC) does not publish detailed findings of their audits, or require member companies to publish how they are putting its standard into practice. Nor does it require member companies to disclose shortcomings they found and the steps they have taken to address them.

In addition, certification bodies rarely require companies to disclose their suppliers and the mines they source from. This makes it much harder for communities affected by mining to report problems to companies that get minerals from their local mines and to push for improvements.

But not all standards have the same problems. The Initiative for Responsible Mining Assurance, a fairly new standard for large-scale mining, stands out for having equal representation of unions, affected communities, nongovernmental organizations, and companies on its decision-making board.

It also has greater transparency requirements, and recently published the first two audit reports, from mines in Mexico and Zimbabwe, with an impressive level of detail about non-compliance it found. With regard to traceability, the Fairmined and Fairtrade Gold standards ensure full traceability of artisanally mined gold back to the mine of origin.

New mandatory rules for all companies and sectors are being developed in the European Union and beyond. This is a good development—voluntary certification standards cannot bring about the industry-wide change that is needed. Laws can level the playing-field and introduce greater corporate accountability.

The debate around mandatory human rights rules raises important questions about the relationship between law and voluntary certification standards. The European Union’s new mandatory minerals regulation already relies heavily on certification bodies for gold, tin, tungsten, and tantalum.

The EU is in the process of assessing which certification bodies will get recognition under the regulation. This is a risky process: a law that relies on a weak certification system for implementation is still weak.

Voluntary certification standards do not substitute for effective grievance redress and remediation, but they have their place and can help foster responsible business conduct—provided they are rigorous, transparent, and inclusive.

A strong certification standard should give civil society and industry representative equal representation on its decision-making body. They should require adherence to the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights and other relevant human rights law.

Risk assessments and audits should be conducted by independent human rights and environmental experts who visit mines of origin and properly consult affected communities, and be complemented by effective grievance mechanisms. To ensure transparency, certification standards should require companies to make audit reports public and describe the steps taken to address risks, as well as publish the names of their suppliers and mines of origin.

These steps could help consumers as well as workers and affected communities throughout the company’s supply chain to be confident that “responsible mineral” standards  are truly helpful when it comes to improving human rights in the sector.

Juliane Kippenberg is a Human Rights Watch associate director for child rights who has done extensive research on child labor in gold mining and gold supply chains, including in Mali, Ghana, and the Philippines.

Children pan for gold along the Bosigon River in Malaya, Camarines Norte, the Philippines. © 2015 Mark Z. Saludes for Human Rights Watch

By Komala Ramachandra and Juliane Kippenberg
WASHINGTON DC, Dec 11 2019 (IPS)

Millions of adults and children around the world suffer abuses as workers who obtain raw materials, toil on farms, and make products for the global market. They are at the bottom of global supply chains, for everything from everyday goods like vegetables and seafood to luxury items like jewelry and designer clothing that end up on store shelves worldwide.

“Ruth,” age 13, is one of them. We met her processing gold by mixing toxic mercury with her bare hands into ground-up gold ore near a mine, during our research in the Philippines. She told us that she had  been working since she was 9, after dropping out of school, though she often doesn’t get paid by the man who gave her bags of gold ore to process.

It’s dangerous being on the lowest rung of this global ladder. In 2013, over 1,100 workers died and 2,000 were injured when the Rana Plaza building, which housed five garment factories, collapsed in Dhaka, Bangladesh.

Since then, some progress has been made in making factories safer in Bangladesh, but there have not yet been sustainable reforms there or in other countries. To keep up with the demands of consumers, women experience a range of labor abuses in Bangladesh and elsewhere.

Multinational corporations, some of the wealthiest and most powerful entities in the world— 69 of the richest 100 entities in the world are corporations, not countries—have often escaped accountability when their operations have hurt workers, the surrounding communities, or the environment

In January 2019, the Brumadinho tailings dam in Brazil collapsed, killing at least 250 people—mostly workers—and unleashed a wave of toxic sludge. The dam had collected waste from a mine extracting iron ore, which is used globally in construction, engineering, automotive, and other industries.

In December 2019, more than 40 people, mostly workers, died in a factory fire in India’s capital, Delhi. Workers were asleep inside the factory, which makes school bags, when the fire erupted.

The era in which voluntary initiatives were the only way to encourage companies to respect human rights is starting to give way to the recognition that new, legally enforceable laws are needed. Although the debates vary by country, the overall trend is promising for the workers and communities that are part of multinational corporate supply chains.

Increasingly, lawmakers are acknowledging that companies need to take human rights—including freedom from unsafe working conditions, forced labor, and wage theft—into account, and are writing laws that require them to do so.

Multinational corporations, some of the wealthiest and most powerful entities in the world— 69 of the richest 100 entities in the world are corporations, not countries—have often escaped accountability when their operations have hurt workers, the surrounding communities, or the environment.

And governments aligned with powerful companies have frequently failed to regulate corporate activity, or have not enforced and even eliminated existing protections for workers, consumers, and the environment.

The UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights provide voluntary guidelines for companies on their human rights responsibilities, but they aren’t enforceable. Industry-driven voluntary standards and certification schemes, which have grown rapidly in recent years, can be useful, but are not sufficient: many companies will only act when they are required to do so by law.

These standards also don’t cover key human rights and environmental issues in companies’ supply chains, and the systems for monitoring compliance with the standards haven’t always been able to catch and rectify problems.

Both the Rana Plaza factory and the Brumadinho dam had been inspected by auditors hired by the companies just months before disaster struck.

In recent years, France, the Netherlands, Australia, and the UK have passed laws on corporate human rights abuses. But some of the existing laws don’t have any teeth. Australia and the UK, for example, merely require companies to be transparent about their supply chains and report any actions they may have taken to address issues like forced or child labor, but do not actually require them to prevent or remedy these issues. Furthermore, neither country has penalties  for companies that don’t comply with the law.

France’s 2017 law is the broadest and most rigorous regulation currently in effect, requiring companies to identify and prevent both human rights and environmental impacts in their supply chains, including the companies they control directly and those with which they work.

Companies in France published the first “vigilance plans” under this law in 2018. Failure to comply can result in lawsuits, and the first legal action under the duty of vigilance law was filed in October 2019.

Laws like the one in France, with requirements for company action, consequences when they fail to follow through, and a way for workers to hold companies accountable, open the door for greater protections for workers around the world.

The year 2020 promises more progress for more people. Parliaments in Germany, Switzerland, Denmark, Canada, Norway, Finland, and Austria are considering laws that would change the way that companies deal with human rights in their global operations, going beyond transparency and reporting to requirements to identify human rights risks in corporate supply chains and to take steps to prevent them.

In a related development, the International Labour Organization is considering whether a new binding global convention on “decent work in global supply chains” is needed, and will hold a meeting with government, trade union, and employer representatives in 2020 to explore this question.

By adopting robust supply chain regulation, countries will create a new international expectation for responsible behavior for businesses, and more rigorous human rights safeguards for millions of workers, like Ruth, who struggle to survive in their mines, factories, and fields.

Excerpt: