Middle East migrant workers, EU bans testing on animals and Oxfam’s brand investigation
Trafficking exposed in the Middle East
The International Labour Organisation’s latest report, Tricked and Trapped: Human Trafficking in the Middle East, sheds light on the 600,000 forced labourers trafficked in the Middle East today, a region that has one of the highest concentrations of migrant workers in the world.
The two-year study examines the processes of human trafficking for labour and sexual exploitation across the United Arab Emirates, Lebanon, Jordan and Kuwait, and assesses the countries’ respective efforts to combat it.
The report was compiled using more than 650 interviews with migrant workers, government officials, NGOs, and employer representatives to get as wide a perspective as possible on this dark issue.
Unsurprisingly, the report reveals that low-skilled migrant workers are the most vulnerable to trafficking and forced labour. But what’s particularly problematic in the Middle East is the “kafala” sponsorship system, which requires migrant workers to have a local sponsor to get employment. The sponsor is subsequently responsible for a worker’s visa and legal status, which, the ILO says, forges an unequal power dynamic between employer and employee.
Migrant workers often have limited ability to organise, terminate their employment contracts or change employers, because of legal systems that rarely recognise their rights. And even in cases where national legal redress does exist, there have only been a handful of trafficking convictions.
While the report notes that governments and civil society are working to combat this epidemic, there is still much to be done. “Human trafficking can only be effectively tackled by addressing the systemic gaps in labour migration governance across the region,” says Frank Hagemann, ILO deputy regional director for the Arab states.
Oxfam goes Behind the Brands
Oxfam’s Behind the Brands report, recently launched, scores and ranks the agricultural policies, commitments and supply chain oversight of the Big 10 food and drinks companies. As we reported in April, Nestlé came out on top, but scored little more than half marks with 54%. Next came Unilever (49%) and Coca-Cola (41%) while at the bottom end of the rankings came General Mills (23%), Kellogg (23%) and ABF (19%).
Speaking to Ethical Corporation, Erinch Sahan, policy adviser for Oxfam’s Behind the Brands campaign, says two of the most startling findings were that none of the Big 10 brands have committed to eliminating discrimination against women in their supply chains, or have policies outlining zero-tolerance for land grabbing. Other weaknesses include an overall air of secrecy about agricultural supply chains, and failure to commit to paying small-scale producers a fair price.
“The focus on short-term profits has meant that the Big 10 aren’t focusing on investing to have visibility over the issues in their supply chains. Nor are they focused on paying the price to make their supply chains more sustainable and inclusive,” says Sahan. “However, a longer-term focus might mean they see the importance of building fair and inclusive relationships with suppliers that lead to resilient, sustainable and equitable conditions on farms producing their ingredients.”
EU bans animal testing for cosmetic ingredients
In a huge win for animal rights activists, the European Union has banned all new cosmetic products sold in Europe from using ingredients tested on animals.
Europe is now the largest market to commit to such a sweeping ban. But not everyone is rejoicing. The industry’s European trade body, Cosmetics Europe, says the ban threatens companies’ competitiveness, and overlooks the fact that there are still no alternatives to animal tests to ensure the safety of some specific ingredients.
But Human Society International (HSI), which is leading a Be Cruelty-Free global campaign, disagrees. “Europe’s inventory of cosmetics ingredients lists more than 18,000 existing substances used by cosmetics manufacturers to formulate their beauty products,” says Troy Seidle, director of research and toxicology at HSI. “The European commission has expressly stated that ‘safe innovation’ by the cosmetics industry is entirely achievable without new animal testing if companies rely on combinations of existing ingredients with long histories of safe use.”
And there is still a bigger battle to wage, as animal testing for cosmetics is still legal in most countries. Seidle notes that some parts of South America, cosmetics safety guidelines still heavily rely on animal testing, while in China – which serves as one of the world’s largest cosmetics markets worth an estimated $25bn – animal testing for new cosmetic ingredients and some finished formulations is still a legal requirement.
Beyond banning animal testing and halting operations in countries where animal testing is required, HSI wants cosmetic brands to go further and advocate for change. “Instead of claiming that their hands are tied because of regulatory requirements, join forces with HSI to get those requirements amended,” Seidle says. “Consumers the world over are demanding change and they’ll be watching to see which companies are genuine change-makers.”