Forced labour: clothing brands have the chance to press China amid post-virus slowdown, rights advocate says
- Hundreds of global companies buy cotton and make goods in Xinjiang, China, where over 1 million Uygurs are estimated to be detained, some doing forced labour
- Proposed US legislation targeting forced labour, and recent disruption to Chinese manufacturing, give brands leverage to effect change, labour rights body says
As consumers, it is a difficult issue to police. Nearly a quarter of the world’s raw cotton is turned into fabric in Xinjiang, a region in China where the Uygur minority group are persecuted and – according to human rights organisations – some are made to work in apparel factories against their will.
Hundreds of global companies buy cotton and make goods in Xinjiang, including Lacoste – which was found to be manufacturing gloves in a government detention centre – Muji, Uniqlo, H&M, Esprit and Adidas.
“You can’t ever be sure that you don’t have coerced labour in your supply chain if you do cotton business in China,” says Nathan Ruser, a researcher at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI). “Xinjiang labour and what is almost certainly coerced labour is very deeply entrenched into the supply chain that exists in Xinjiang.”
The US House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly last month to pass a measure that would punish top Chinese officials for detaining an estimated 1 million-plus Uygurs in internment camps.
A report this year by the Fair Labour Association, citing “credible reports of forced labour and other violations of fundamental human rights in the Xinjiang region”, called on affiliates including Esquel to end production there. The companies either declined to comment or denied using indentured Xinjiang labour.
“Brands are in a difficult situation,” says Scott Nova, executive director of the Worker Rights Consortium, a labour rights monitoring organisation. “They can’t defend what is taking place, and because they can’t do proper audits in Xinjiang, they don’t even have a mechanism to defend being there. Yet there is a very substantial cost associated with leaving, so instead they are choosing not to look at the situation directly.”
Currently the garment industry has strength in numbers, given the number of retailers that rely on Xinjiang to provide them with yarn.
“There is such a strong moral case for leaving, but they don’t want to do it,” Nova says. “It’s China, and as well as this being the cheapest and most reliable way to get cotton, most brands have their own very serious ambitions in the Chinese market and they don’t want to offend the Chinese government. As a result, they make no comment about what is the largest internment of a religious minority since World War II.”
How North Korean factories could benefit pandemic
Reports of widespread detentions at internment camps in Xinjiang have been circulating since 2018. Beijing has said that the “vocational training centres” are used to combat violent religious extremism, but evidence shows people being detained simply for expressing their Muslim faith or having connections in the Middle East.
Brands now have some power to curb the use of Uygur labour. Amid the US-China trade war and in the wake of severe coronavirus-related disruption, China will be nervous of losing any further manufacturing capital. This means retailers arguably have more power than they did a year ago to demand that Beijing reform Uygur rights. The backing of the US government will strengthen their case.
“If they [brands] withdraw, it could very well be a trigger for a fundamental shift in approach and it would save a number of lives,” Nova says. “It would be wonderful if they did. They don’t have to be active liberators, they just have to stop funding – and therefore aiding and abetting.”
“It is such a powerful test for the industry,” he adds. “All these years they have been saying they are committed to human rights – let’s see if it’s true.”