Learning from Lululemon: If Canada wants to get serious about forced labour, disclosure laws won’t do
The Canadian government recently passed the Fighting Against Forced Labour and Child Labour in Supply Chains Act.
- The Canadian government recently passed the Fighting Against Forced Labour and Child Labour in Supply Chains Act.
- The new law is designed to address forced labour and child labour in supply chains by requiring companies to disclose their efforts in eliminating labour abuse from their supply chains.
- The legislation, known colloquially as Canada’s Modern Slavery Act, does not require large Canadian companies to actually take actions to prevent or reduce the risk of forced labour and child labour in their supply chains.
Remembering Rana Plaza
- This new Canadian law comes a decade after the tragic collapse of the nine-storey Rana Plaza building in Bangladesh that killed nearly 1,130 garment workers and injured over 2,500.
- The disaster raised concerns about the ability of voluntary corporate initiatives to address labour rights violations and protect workers.
- Remarkably, only one Canadian garment company — Loblaw Companies Ltd., the parent company of the Joe Fresh brand — has signed the accord.
Lululemon report
- Our report, Lululemon’s Conundrum: Good Corporate Social Responsibility Initiatives and the Persistence of Forced Labour, examines Lululemon’s efforts to address potential labour abuse in its supply chain.
- In 2021, KnowTheChain — which evaluates companies’ efforts to address forced labour risks in their supply chains based on international labour standards — ranked Lululemon first among 129 apparel and footwear companies for its measures to address forced labour risks.
Lululemon supplier concerns
- Despite this, Lululemon has not signed the 2021 International Accord for Health and Safety in the Textile and Garment Industry.
- Two reports found that from 2018 to 2019, workers at a Lululemon supplier factory had to work two to three nights without being allowed to go home or take necessary breaks.
- While a 2022 follow-up investigation determined this situation had been rectified by Lululemon and the supplier, some workers reported they still felt unable to refuse overtime requests.
Corporate transparency issues
- Employees are encouraged to report any violations to this code internally through Lululemon or externally using third-party tools such as the international Integrity Line.
- However, third-party complaint avenues pose challenges, including requiring tech access, trusting unfamiliar third parties and filing a complaint that protects one’s anonymity while still providing enough detail about worker issues.
- Another code Lululemon has in place is the Vendor Code of Ethics and its accompanying Benchmarks policy.
Reliance on local labour laws
- Lululemon’s measures to address forced labour largely rely on the labour laws in the countries in which the suppliers are located.
- Relying on local labour laws is a major shortcoming of many corporate initiatives, since they often fall short of international legal norms and are not well enforced.
Due diligence legislation needed
- Disclosure laws, like those in Canada’s new act, will not require Lululemon to reveal the type of information needed to ensure its suppliers are not abusing workers.
- Nor does the new law require large multinational corporations to take any steps to eradicate labour abuses in the supply chains.
- If Canada is to truly eradicate force labour in global supply chains, it needs mandatory due diligence legislation that involves supply chain workers at every stage of the process — before another disaster like Rana Plaza occurs.