Marine Stewardship Council

    United Kingdom
    Website

    Correspondence

    January 24, 2023 - April 18, 2024
    20 inquiries
    17 replies

    Email sent to Jackie Marks, Senior Public Relations Manager.

    The email asked: "1) does the certification system consider labor issues at all or is it entirely sustainability focused? My understanding is that it's the latter. 2) I understand that a number of Chinese squid processors are MSC certified; does (or can) MSC certification also cover specific Chinese fishing ships?"

    Jackie Marks of the MSC replied: "My responses to your questions below, and a note to keep in mind that there are two Standards that MSC owns – the Fisheries Standard, and the Chain of Custody Standard. The former applies to fishing operations, and the latter applies to everything once the fish is landed.

    1. does the certification system consider labor issues at all or is it entirely sustainability focused? My understanding is that it's the latter. Correct, the MSC Fisheries Standard is an environmental standard focused on sustainable fishing. However, Since 2014, any fishing vessels prosecuted for forced labor violations in the previous two years is excluded from our program. To improve transparency, MSC fisheries and at-sea supply chain businesses have had to publicly report on their labor practices since 2018. Certified supply chain businesses that undertake processing, packing and manual off-load must undergo an independent third-party labor audit, or submit a self-assessment report to MSC and allow MSC to commission its own independent audit.

    2. I understand that a number of Chinese squid processors are MSC certified; does (or can) MSC certification also cover specific Chinese fishing ships? Several Chinese squid processors have MSC Chain of Custody certification. If you want to dig into this some more or find specific suppliers, you can check them out on our “find a supplier”. With Chain of Custody certification this applies to everything after the fish has been landed, so no, the certification does not apply to fishing vessels.

    Please let me know if you have any follow up questions!"

    The Outlaw Ocean Project emailed Jackie Marks of the MSC: "You mentioned that Chinese processors have to do an "independent third-party labor audit, or submit a self- assessment report to MSC and allow MSC to commission its own independent audit."

    Can you tell us:

    1. How many independent labor audits of Chinese processing plants have been submitted to MSC in the past 3 years?
    2. Which plants and companies have conducted those audits during the same period?
    3. How often in the past 3 years has MSC commissioned its own labor audits of these plants and which plants did MSC target for such audits?
    4. Did any of the plants receive a failing or low score in the audit and what were the consequences of such failing/low scores? Would it be feasible to have this information by end of day Friday, April 7?"

    Jackie Marks at the MSC replied: "I will need to pass your question on to one of my colleagues who is familiar with this topic, keeping your deadline in mind. I’ll be back in touch."

    Jackie Marks at the MSC replied: "Thanks for your questions and apologies for the delay in getting back to you. We had quite a few people offline for the easter holiday and/or spring break. Much of the information you’re looking for is confidential and we’re unable to share details. I’m sharing a few specific responses/points of clarification to your questions below:

    1. How many independent labor audits of Chinese processing plants have been submitted to MSC in the past 3 years? Certificate holders are required to provide evidence to their auditor, or Conformity Assessment Body (CAB), not to the MSC as it is a third-party system.

    We are aware that a significant number of certificate holders participate in a recognized 3rd party labor audit program, but we’re unable to disclose who and what numbers are submitting these to their MSC CABs. Those certificates who do not participate in a recognized program are required to complete a guided self-assessment and undergo a labor audit commissioned by MSC, if called upon to do so.

    1. Which plants and companies have conducted those audits during the same period? This information is confidential. However, some companies requested trainings to understand better of social compliances, and some even moved to 3rd party certification for social audit in the last 2 years.

    2. How often in the past 3 years has MSC commissioned its own labor audits of these plants and which plants did MSC target for such audits? Our sample rates and methodology are confidential. Until May 1, these selections will continue to be made from certificate holders located in countries that qualify as standard risk and choose to complete the MSC self-assessment vs. participate in a recognized audit program. After May 1, these requirements will expand globally.

    3. Did any of the plants receive a failing or low score in the audit and what were the consequences of such failing/low scores? As with all of our requirements, entities have been suspended when the auditor has seen a non-compliance with our labor policy. Details of this are confidential.

    Please let me know if you have any follow up questions and I’ll do my best to provide a response."

    The Outlaw Ocean Project emailed: "I have a further question around MSC certifiied processing plants that I hope you or your colleagues can help with: Are the self-assessments and recognized social audit schemes required by the MSC designed to identify migrant workers present at sites, including persons belonging to vulnerable groups such as ethnic minorities from the Chinese province of Xinjiang and North Koreans? My impression is that this falls outside of the MSC’s purview, but I just wanted to verify that."

    Jackie Marks replied for the MSC: “The audits MSC recognizes (SMETA, BSCI, SA8000 BRCGS) are all designed to consider all workers regardless of if they are local, or if they are migrants. In recognition of the particular vulnerabilities that migrants might face, the standards and audit programs include special consideration of efforts to mitigate risk to migrants regardless of their country and place of operation.

    I hope that helps to clarify. Can you provide some more information about what you’re working on related to these questions and what your timing for that product is?"

    The Outlaw Ocean Project replied: "Thanks for that, Jackie. Just to clarify, is the self-declaration also designed to identify if vulnerable workers (such as those from the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region or North Korea) are working at a particular plant? We partner with various news organizations around the world to publish. We’re working on a tight deadline this week to finish this current project, which generally involves squid, but I’m not currently able to say which specific organization will publish it."

    The Outlaw Ocean Project emailed the MSC: "I’m contacting you in light of our latest investigation, which concerns the use of forced labor in China’s food processing industry, and a link we’ve discovered with Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) Chain of Custody certifications.

    Our investigation has identified 11 MSC certified seafood processing facilities in China using forced labor from the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (XUAR). The details are as follows:

    Rongcheng Haibo Seafood Co. Ltd. (MSC-C-59738) was certified 28 September 2022. The MSC certification was issued after the factory is known to have accepted Uyghurs through a Chinese government labor transfer program. Our investigation demonstrates the presence of Uyghur forced labor at the site over a multi-year period, including within two weeks of the factory receiving its MSC accreditation.

    Shandong Haidu Ocean Product Co. Ltd (MSC-C-57659) was certified 30 August 2022. The MSC certification was issued after the factory is known to have accepted Uyghurs through a Chinese government labor transfer program. Our investigation demonstrates the presence of Uyghur forced labor at the site over a multi-year period.

    Qingdao Tianyuan Aquatic Foodstuffs Co. Ltd. (MSC-C-52638) was certified 12 December 2022. The MSC certification was issued after the factory is known to have accepted Uyghurs through a Chinese government labor transfer program. Our investigation demonstrates the presence of Uyghur forced labor at the site over a multi-year period, including within two weeks of the factory receiving its MSC accreditation.

    Yantai Sanko Fisheries Co. Ltd. (MSC-C-51794) was certified 23 November 2022. The MSC certification was issued after the factory is known to have accepted Uyghurs through a Chinese government labor transfer program. Our investigation demonstrates the presence of Uyghur forced labor at the site over a multi-year period, including within one week of the factory receiving its MSC accreditation.

    Rizhao Meijia Keyuan Foods Co. Ltd. (MSC-C-53370) was certified 13 March 2023. The MSC certification was issued after the factory is known to have accepted Uyghurs through a Chinese government labor transfer program. Our investigation demonstrates the presence of Uyghur forced labor at the site over a multi-year period, including within two weeks of the factory receiving its MSC accreditation.

    Shandong Meijia Group Co. Ltd. (MSC-C-51912) was certified 13 March 2023. The MSC certification was issued after the company is known to have accepted Uyghurs through a Chinese government labor transfer program.

    Rizhao Rirong Aquatic Products And Foods Co. Ltd. (MSC-C-55351) was certified 7 June 2023. The MSC certification was issued after the factory is known to have accepted Uyghurs through a Chinese government labor transfer program. Our investigation demonstrates the presence of Uyghur forced labor at the site over a multi-year period, including within two weeks of the factory receiving its MSC accreditation.

    Rizhao Rongxing Co. Ltd. (MSC-C-53499) was certified 24 May 2023. The MSC certification was issued after the factory is known to have accepted Uyghurs through a Chinese government labor transfer program. Our investigation demonstrates the presence of Uyghur forced labor at the site over a multi-year period, including within two weeks of the factory receiving its MSC accreditation.

    Rongcheng Taiming Foods Co. Ltd. (MSC-C-57091), Rongcheng Huiying Foods Co. Ltd. (MSC-C-57161) and Shandong Lanrun Aquatic Co. Ltd. (MSC-C-57565) were certified 22 October 2022, 18 January 2023 and 15 May 2023, respectively. The MSC certifications were issued after our intelligence indicates the parent companies of the factories are known to have accepted Uyghurs through a Chinese government labor transfer program.

    The United Nations, human rights organizations and academic experts agree that since 2018, the Chinese government has systematically subjected Xinjiang’s predominantly Muslim ethnic minorities to forced labor across the country via state-sanctioned employment schemes which use coercive methods in worker enrolment.

    Please could MSC clarify whether each of the processing plants named above undertook third party social audits or completed MSC-commissioned audits after submitting MSC Chain of Custody Labour Self-Assessment Forms? Please also indicate whether these audits and self-assessments identified the presence of workers deployed through the Chinese government's XUAR labor transfer program.

    Does MSC have any comment to make in light of the above information? Please respond to this email by close of business June 28, 2023."

    The Outlaw Ocean Project emailed: "We're still looking to better understand MSC's management of social audits at CoC-certified sites. With that in mind, it would be helpful if you could offer insights into the following contextual questions:

    • Does MSC expect the self-assessment to identify migrant workers, including those from Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region and North Korea, given the specific question about this on the form?
    • Does MSC commission an audit at every site which opts for self-assessment or do you apply some kind of selection criteria meaning that some CoC-certified sites may not undergo social audit?
    • Does MSC retain copies of social audit reports and corrective action plans?"

    Jo Miller, Head of Public Relations at the MSC replied: "Thank you for getting in touch last week.

    I would like to stress that the MSC is taking this matter extremely seriously. Since receiving your email on Friday, I have been discussing it with colleagues.

    I’m sure you understand there is a lot for us to look into here - audits for labor eligibility are carried out by third parties and we need to liaise with external organizations to ensure we have all the information to inform how we address the concerns you have raised.

    I wonder if it might be possible to have an opportunity to talk to you, alongside our Chief Communications Officer, Ishbel Matheson, so we can better understand what your investigation has uncovered? I can confirm some details of audits then. We’d also welcome the opportunity to provide some context about our work in China, where we have a team of staff.

    We are available between 2pm and 5pm BST (9am and midday in DC) tomorrow. Does that suit, if not please let me know when you are available?

    Thank you in advance for giving us the opportunity to engage in a discussion on this investigation."

    The Outlaw Ocean Project replied: "I'm replying on behalf of Ian, who won't be available to speak tomorrow as he's currently on a reporting trip. I'd be happy to talk to you and Ishbel tomorrow alongside others from the Outlaw Ocean investigative team. Please note that we will need to stay on record for the call. The best slot for us looks to be 15:00 BST. We use Google Meet, and I'll circulate an invite to all shortly."

    Jo Miller replied for the MSC: “I’m afraid we’re not at a point where we can give you an on the record briefing on this. We’d like the opportunity to discuss the background of your enquiry and to explain the MSC’s program to one of your team so that we can respond appropriately.

    The Outlaw Ocean Project replied: "Unfortunately, we cannot go off record for such interactions. We're happy to supply you with our questions in writing again, I've included them below this email alongside background questions we'd separately passed to your colleague in CC, Jackie, and a couple new questions. We suggest that we stick to email and have you provide us with your replies by close of business 5 July, 2023. Does that sound reasonable?

    We will answer what we can in terms of questions from your side, but please understand that we're not in a position to offer details about our findings and methods, due to the sensitivity of the issues and the acute vulnerability of individuals concerned. We'd prefer to keep the conversation on the topic of how MSC works, and what it does or does not do with regard to offering assurance on fundamental human rights at CoC-certified processing plants.

    1. Please could MSC clarify whether each of the processing plants named below undertook third party social audits or completed MSC-commissioned audits after submitting MSC Chain of Custody Labour Self-Assessment Forms?
    2. Did any of the audits or self-assessments of the below processing plants identify the presence of workers from the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (XUAR)?
    3. Question 6 of the MSC Chain of Custody Labour Self-Assessment Form requires companies to indicate whether migrant workers handle seafood products. Our investigation has found that workers deployed through coercive labor transfer programs from XUAR are referred to by both the Chinese government and Chinese seafood processing plants as "migrant workers". Does MSC expect the self-assessment to identify migrant workers from XUAR? Is MSC able to share a completed self-assessment form demonstrating that XUAR workers have been identified at any Chinese worksite?
    4. Does MSC commission a social audit at every site which opts for self-assessment? Do social audits commissioned by MSC adhere to the same auditable standards set out in the MSC Labour Eligibility Requirements policy?
    5. Does MSC retain copies of social audit reports and corrective action plans? If so, are MSC able to share any of these with us or at least confirm which auditing firms undertook social audits at the sites of interest?
    6. We recognise MSC have integrated social audits against widely-used auditable standards into your CoC certification in order to offer stronger assurance to your supply chain partners, and that the third party systems you've put in place in this regard aren't dissimilar to those adopted by numerous initiatives in other sectors across the world. Our findings indicate that social audits conducted against multiple standards over several years have consistently failed to detect Uyghur forced labor at 11 sites. In light of our findings, does MSC have any comment to make on the effectiveness of social audit as a means for surfacing forced labor generally, or on the suitability of social audit in detecting XUAR forced labor at Chinese worksites?
    7. We understand that MSC have recently undertaken a review of your social and labour policy requirements. Will the information provided to you by the Outlaw Ocean lead to any further review or changes to MSC policy?"

    Jo Miller of the MSC replied: "We do appreciate the more detailed questions and additional time to pull answers together. However, the point of the off-the-record briefing would be to understand more about your report as well as to enable us to explain some important sensitivities on our side, as the part of the context to our response. We feel that it would be beneficial and perhaps more informative for your investigation to be able to approach it this way.

    In terms of what we would like to understand from you: What is the focus of your investigation – is it on MSC or the seafood sector more widely? What do you hope it will achieve? Can you tell us the evidence that you’re basing the presence of forced labour in these sites on please? We understand your point about sensitivities, and don’t expect you to reveal sources or details but it would be helpful to know the type of information you have.

    You say that social audits have been ineffective at identifying forced labour: can you be clearer about the evidence that backs up this assertion? Do you have an open mind about whether social audits have a purpose or benefit. It would be good to understand the report’s editorial standpoint on this?

    Who else are you speaking with for this piece? We’re aware that you’re in touch with labour standards providers and wondered if there are other experts or companies involved?

    Do you have a sense of the timeline you’re working towards for publication? Any ideas of the media outlets you’ll be targeting?

    I look forward to hearing from you."

    The Outlaw Ocean Project replied: "Thanks for your reply. We greatly appreciate your offer to talk, but on principle we think it’s best to stay on record and, ideally, in writing. We think it's really important that the MSC has a chance to offer its perspective and explain its approach to managing labor risks at CoC-certified sites, and we're trying to facilitate that, but it's important for our purposes that the exchange remain on record.

    To answer your questions, the focus of our investigation is the global seafood supply chain through the lens of China. We hope to achieve rigorous explanatory and investigative journalism. We can't discuss findings or methodology at this point, other than to confirm that we've corroborated the presence of Uyghur forced labor over several years at eight of the 11 sites via multiple sources, including through publicly available information.

    On social audits, our perspective is less relevant than yours – we don't have an editorial standpoint and our work is focused on writing news articles. We're interested in your perspective on the matter, assuming you'd like the opportunity to make it public, as an organization endorsing third party labor assurance through social audit.

    We don't assert that social audits are ineffective at identifying forced labor, although there appears to be ample evidence supporting such an assertion from academics, NGOs and government watchdogs. We've noted to MSC that our findings from China indicate that social audits conducted against multiple standards over several years have failed to detect state-imposed forced labor affecting XUAR ethnic minorities. We believe this to be the case because, despite evidence of XUAR forced labor over multiple years at some sites, US companies have continued to import goods in contravention of the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act (UFLPA). Our interactions with a range of importers indicate that US businesses wouldn't wilfully import goods in violation of applicable laws if they were aware of the presence of workers from XUAR at the factories. We therefore feel our findings indicate social audit is broadly failing to detect XUAR forced labor, but we're interested in evidence to the contrary, hence our questions to you below.

    Unfortunately, we can't discuss who we are talking with during an active investigation nor the outlets we intend to publish in, and we don't feel that is relevant to MSC explaining its work and perspective. I can confirm that, in general, The Outlaw Ocean Project publishes its work in different languages across a range of global media.

    With regards to timeline, we'd ask that you provide your input by close of business 5 July, 2023."

    Jo Miller of the MSC replied: “Thank you for the answers – this is very helpful.”

    Jo Miller replied for the MSC:
    "Please find the MSC’s responses to your questions below, together with some further background to provide context to our answers. As you’ll read, we are taking the concerns you raised very seriously and once we have sight of the evidence you have will carefully consider the best action to deal with any issues. Thank you again for the additional time to allow us to get the answers for you.

    Background

    The Marine Stewardship Council is an environmental not-for profit organisation, whose goal is ending overfishing. This is a challenging task which involves MSC working with many fishers and supply chain companies across the world. We are not a human or labour rights organisation – our core expertise is in the science of fisheries management and marine biology. But recognising the need for forced labour to be addressed by the global seafood industry, we do have eligibility requirements aimed at helping to tackle these forms of abuse. Since 2014, if a company is convicted of forced labour, they are not eligible for our programme. In 2019, we introduced requirements that some certified supply chain companies – such as processors and packing companies - must either provide a valid labour audit from credible and independent third-party provider or provide a self-assessment against a designated set of criteria. If they opt for a self-assessment, they must also allow MSC to commission a labour audit, if called upon to do so, at any time. The requirements for labour audits are comparatively new to the MSC programme and came into effect during the covid pandemic. If we have evidence that they are not effective, then we will consider what other methods may be more suitable or the improvements that may be needed. We have always sought to learn from the knowledge and expertise of others as we have developed our approach to this issue and will continue to do so.

    Our answers to your questions

    1. Please could MSC clarify whether each of the processing plants named below undertook third party social audits or completed MSC-commissioned audits after submitting MSC Chain of Custody Labour Self- Assessment Forms?

    In the case of the companies identified in the report, seven had audits carried out by Sedex-approved auditors and four opted for self-assessment. Sedex’s audits are recognised globally and used by many leading businesses across many sectors – not just seafood - to help identify labour issues. Furthermore, one of the companies that carried out a self-assessment also had a random MSC commissioned social audit carried out by Elevate, a social compliance assessment company. None of these audits raised issues with forced labour.

    1. Did any of the audits or self-assessments of the below processing plants identify the presence of workers from the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (XUAR)?

    No - it is not a requirement to identify migrants’ place of origin. The MSC self-assessments identify if migrant workers are employed and ask the percentage of these employed a) to handle seafood and b) who are on a temporary contract. These are global requirements, and not geared to an individual country or region. It is our understanding that while SMETA audits ask for nationality of workers there is no specific requirement to identify local migrants’ backgrounds under the SMETA audits.

    1. Question 6 of the MSC Chain of Custody Labour Self-Assessment Form requires companies to indicate whether migrant workers handle seafood products. Our investigation has found that workers deployed through coercive labor transfer programs from XUAR are referred to by both the Chinese government and Chinese seafood processing plants as "migrant workers".

    Does MSC expect the self-assessment to identify migrant workers from XUAR? Is MSC able to share a completed self-assessment form demonstrating that XUAR workers have been identified at any Chinese worksite?

    As above, MSC self-assessments do not request any certificate holder to identify the nationality or origin of their workers. See below for answer on confidentiality.

    1. Does MSC commission a social audit at every site which opts for self-assessment? Do social audits commissioned by MSC adhere to the same auditable standards set out in the MSC Labour Eligibility Requirements policy?

    We select certificate holders for MSC commissioned labour audits based on a statistically random sample. One of the four sites which opted for self-assessment, one was selected for a random audit and this did not raise any issues with forced labour. The random audits can be carried out using one of the five identified providers[i] or another provider of which we approve. As these are relatively new requirements, we are trying to identify the best provider and tool to use, but the intention is the same: to identify whether there are any issues with forced labour.

    1. Does MSC retain copies of social audit reports and corrective action plans? If so, are MSC able to share any of these with us or at least confirm which auditing firms undertook social audits at the sites of interest?

    We do not own the SMETA reports and therefore cannot share them with you. The reports belong to the companies which commissioned them. We only have access to them to verify that they meet MSC requirements. Furthermore, we believe there is an issue of confidentiality around the audit process, namely that it is important that those who take part can safely engage and report any issues, without feeling compromised. The labour audits were undertaken by Sedex-approved auditors as noted above. The MSC-commissioned audit was carried out by Elevate.

    1. We recognise MSC have integrated social audits against widely-used auditable standards into your CoC certification in order to offer stronger assurance to your supply chain partners, and that the third party systems you've put in place in this regard aren't dissimilar to those adopted by numerous initiatives in other sectors across the world. Our findings indicate that social audits conducted against multiple standards over several years have consistently failed to detect Uyghur forced labor at 11 sites. In light of our findings, does MSC have any comment to make on the effectiveness of social audit as a means for surfacing forced labor generally, or on the suitability of social audit in detecting XUAR forced labor at Chinese worksites?

    The MSC’s consultation on social welfare identified five labour audit programs that are widely used throughout the world, by brands and supply chains and are regarded as providing credible assurance on labour issues. That said, we are very concerned about your findings and are keen to understand the evidence that they are based on. When we have sight of this, we will carefully consider the best action to deal with any issues that arise from your report and any improvements we need to make.

    1. We understand that MSC have recently undertaken a review of your social and labour policy requirements. Will the information provided to you by the Outlaw Ocean lead to any further review or changes to MSC policy?

    MSC is an environmental NGO which developed and now maintains a standard for environmentally sustainable fishing together with a chain of custody standard to provide assurance that certified product is segregated from non-certified in the supply chain. Our eligibility requirements on forced labour are relatively new and we are open to seeing the evidence you provide, learning from others with more experience in this and carefully evaluating any improvements that might need to be made following our review of the evidence."

    The Outlaw Ocean Project replied: "Thank you for sharing these details, we really appreciate the transparency and engagement from MSC on this matter. I'm including some follow-up queries below, and we'd be grateful if MSC could provide input to these by close of business Tuesday July 11, 2023.

    1. Please could MSC specify which CoC-certified processing plants underwent audit (7 sites) and which plants carried out self-assessments (4 sites). For SMETA audited sites, please detail which auditing firms undertook the most recent audits and provide date of audit. For self-assessed sites, please provide the date of completion. Please also specify which processing plant underwent an MSC-commissioned audit by Elevate, and when this audit occured.

    2. With regards to MSC self-assessments not identifying the origin of migrant workers, please could MSC clarify whether any of the self-assessed plants (4 sites) disclosed the presence of migrant workers? If yes, please identify the plants concerned.

    3. Our understanding is that the Sedex self-assessment questionnaires (SAQ) which generally precede SMETA audit require sites to identify migrant workers, which includes internal migrants or people who have "migrated on a temporary basis to another in-country region" (according to Sedex's SAQ Glossary of Terms). In order to adequately plan for SMETA audit, Sedex also requires sites to specify the primary and secondary languages of all employees - on the understanding that auditors will seek to engage a representative sample of the workforce for interview, payroll review, etc per SMETA Best Practice Guidance. Please could you confirm [a] whether the Sedex SAQs for the audited plants (7 sites) identified Uyghur as a primary or secondary language of any employees and [b] whether the SMETA audit reports themselves identified the presence of any migrant workers at the factories? If yes, please identify the plants concerned.

    4. Are we correct in our understanding of your response to question 3 below that three self-assessed CoC-certified sites haven't, to MSC's knowledge, undergone social audit? If yes, please identify the plants concerned."

    Jo Miller responded for the MSC: “To provide context to these, in developing our programme for certified sustainable seafood, the MSC includes high levels of transparency, particularly in the assessment of fisheries, publishing all assessments, certification reports and audits on fisheries.msc.org. We recognise the importance of stakeholder consultation and allowing the open scrutiny of assessments. Our labour eligibility requirements for fisheries at sea require them to complete self-declarations on forced labour, which are also publicly available. However, for supply chain operations, certified to our Chain of Custody (COC) Standard, assessments include commercially sensitive information about details such as supplier contracts. Therefore, to ensure respect for the rights of certificate holders to confidentiality of their commercial information, and market support for sustainable fishing, the details of these reports are confidential. Additionally, we do not legally own the reports from third party labour audits and therefore are unable to share the data contained in them. Details within these reports are owned by the companies which commissioned them.

    Although we are not in a position to provide you with fuller detail, we can only reiterate that we are taking these questions very seriously and have raised your query with Sedex. Without being able to review the evidence you have for forced labour, our response is limited. Again, we request that you share the evidence you have with us so that we can review how best to respond. If you have any update on when you expect your investigation to be published, we’d be very grateful for the heads up so that we can ensure we’re ready to review the evidence you have and ensure a timely response.

    Answers to your questions:

    1. Please could MSC specify which CoC-certified processing plants underwent audit (7 sites) and which plants carried out self-assessments (4 sites). For SMETA audited sites, please detail which auditing firms undertook the most recent audits and provide date of audit. For self-assessed sites, please provide the date of completion. Please also specify which processing plant underwent an MSC-commissioned audit by Elevate, and when this audit occurred.

    As we explained previously, MSC does not own the SMETA reports and therefore cannot share them or the data they contain with you. If you’d like to see the details in the SMETA reports, we suggest you request these directly from the companies. Self-assessments are part of the Chain of Custody assessment process and therefore confidential.

    1. With regards to MSC self-assessments not identifying the origin of migrant workers, please could MSC clarify whether any of the self-assessed plants (4 sites) disclosed the presence of migrant workers? If yes, please identify the plants concerned.

    As above, self-assessments are part of the Chain of Custody assessment process and therefore confidential.

    1. Our understanding is that the Sedex self-assessment questionnaires (SAQ) which generally precede SMETA audit require sites to identify migrant workers, which includes internal migrants or people who have "migrated on a temporary basis to another in-country region" (according to Sedex's SAQ Glossary of Terms). In order to plan adequately for SMETA audit, Sedex also requires sites to specify the primary and secondary languages of all employees - on the understanding that auditors will seek to engage a representative sample of the workforce for interview, payroll review, etc per SMETA Best Practice Guidance. Please could you confirm [a] whether the Sedex SAQs for the audited plants (7 sites) identified Uyghur as a primary or secondary language of any employees and [b] whether the SMETA audit reports themselves identified the presence of any migrant workers at the factories? If yes, please identify the plants concerned.

    This is a question for Sedex. As explained above, MSC does not own these reports and does not have permission to share the data they contain.

    1. Are we correct in our understanding of your response to question 3 below that three self-assessed CoC-certified sites haven't, to MSC's knowledge, undergone social audit? If yes, please identify the plants concerned.

    This is a question for the companies involved. As above, we’re unable to provide specifics on the details of the self- assessments.

    The Outlaw Ocean Project replied: "Thank you for your latest email. Just to underscore that we will be publishing all of MSC's responses, and so would urge a reconsideration of the confidentiality. Given the gravity of what we've uncovered, there will ultimately be calls for greater transparency from industry and others, and so it may be worth considering whether or not MSC should take the initiative in that regard.

    We've one more question. In a context where seafood processors, buyers, social compliance firms, auditable standards holders and certification bodies collectively evade basic transparency about the effectiveness of their forced labor detection and prevention systems, does MSC believe its CoC certification offers any meaningful assurance on labor to seafood consumers? Unfortunately, at this stage we remain unable to provide further information about publication timelines, methodology and findings beyond what we've already disclosed."

    The Outlaw Ocean Project emailed: “Thanks again for your engagement, your note on both issues is well-received. If MSC found that a certified processing plant was indeed using XUAR forced labor, under what grounds would you revoke CoC certification?”

    Jo Miller replied for the MSC: “The conformity assessment bodies (CABs) responsible for certifying companies to our standards can suspend certificates if there is evidence that the company no longer complies with the MSC's requirements or when directed to do so by the MSC as a result of unacceptable conduct. Following an investigation and the opportunity for those involved to respond, the course of action taken by CABs and the MSC would be determined on a case by case basis depending on the strength of evidence and the gravity of the issues involved.

    Rather than requesting anonymity, my point was that the responses in these emails are representative of the MSC’s position as an organisation – and are not attributed to any one individual - so please ensure that they are presented in this way, as is usual practice for media reporting on organisations’ responses.

    I believe we’ve provided you with all the information we can at this stage. We will await the publication of your report."

    The Outlaw Ocean Project's publishing partner in Germany, Die Zeit, contacted the MSC office in Germany for comment on the investigation and the extent to which it is at all possible to restrict the import of problematically caught or processed fish from China and other countries.

    Andrea Harmsen, MSC PR Manager Germany/Austria/Switzerland, replied. A summary in English of this email: As an environmental organization and voluntary certification program for sustainable fisheries, the MSC does not see itself in a position to contribute to the discussion on import restrictions or other regulatory or economic policy measures. The email outlined the two certification programs run by the MSC - one on sustainability (for fisheries) and one on traceability (for companies in the supply chain).

    The email in its original language said: "Vielen Dank für Ihre Anfrage – und Ihre wichtige Arbeit zu diesem Thema! Was ihre Frage nach einem Interview betrifft, muss ich jedoch passen. Ich hoffe auf Ihr Verständnis, dass wir uns als Umweltorganisation und freiwilliges Zertifizierungsprogramm für nachhaltige Fischereien nicht in der Lage sehen, zur Diskussion über Import-Einschränkungen oder andere regulatorische oder wirtschaftspolitische Maßnahmen beizutragen.

    Erlauben Sie mir ungeachtet dessen jedoch eine kurze Anmerkung zum besseren Verständnis des MSC-Programms, bezugnehmend darauf, dass der Zeit-Artikel Zwangsarbeit fürs Fischgericht in Zusammenhang mit dem MSC-Zitat von „einigen als `nachhaltig´ zertifizierten Unternehmen“spricht:

    Ein Nachhaltigkeits-Zertifikat vergibt der MSC nur an Fischereien (und zwar an Fischereien, die umweltverträglich fischen, also nachweislich keine überfischten Bestände befischen, das Ökosystem Meer nicht zerstören und eine angemessene Regulierung und Kontrolle ihrer Fischereiaktivitäten nachweisen können).

    Beim MSC-Zertifikat für Unternehmen der Lieferkette hingegen handelt es sich um ein Rückverfolgbarkeits-Zertifikat: Dieses Zertifikat stellt sicher, dass Fisch aus MSC-zertifizierter Fischerei über die gesamte Lieferkette hinweg eindeutig identifizierbar bleibt und im Verarbeitungsprozess nicht mit nicht-MSC-zertifiziertem Fisch vermischt wird. Die Zertifizierung der Lieferkette nach dem MSC-Rückverfolgbarkeitsstandard stellt für die KonsumentInnen sicher, dass sich in jedem Fischprodukt mit MSC-Siegel auch tatsächlich Fisch aus einer nachhaltigen, MSC-zertifizierten Fischerei befindet.

    Dies nur zur Klarstellung, da mir das in Ihrem Artikel nicht eindeutig schien. Herzliche Grüße"

    Die Zeit emailed the MSC with specific questions. A summer of that email in English: Can you answer specific questions about the issues raised in The Outlaw Ocean Project's investigation regarding traceability certs for factories where forced labor was identified, and comingling undermining traceability of catch back to vessel:

    1. Does MSC today certify any fish with a traceability certificate that comes to you via the companies identified in the “Outlaw Ocean Project”?
    2. Regardless of the answer to point 1, how does MSC ensure on the Chinese side that the fish labelled accordingly is not actually mixed with fish of problematic origin? Is that even possible?

    The email in its original language said: "Vielen Dank für die Antwort und auch für die Klärung zu dem Artikel der Washingtoner Kollegen. Jetzt muss ich aber doch nochmal genauer nachfragen: Es sind ja offenbar Rückverfolgbarkeits-Zertifikate von MSC für Fisch ausgestellt worden, der nach den Recherchen von „The Outlaw Ocean“ in Fabriken zurückverfolgt wurde, in denen Zwangsarbeit eingesetzt wurde. Das ist der eine Punkt, und zum anderen haben diese Recherchen gezeigt, dass chinesische Fangzertifikate häufig erst in diesen Verarbeitungsfabriken selbst ausgestellt werden, dass die Rückverfolgbarkeit bis zum Fangschiff gezielt unterwandert wird, und man kann umständehalber nach Sichtung der diversen Videos/Fotos/Detektivberichte/Stichproben annehmen, dass derartige Angaben dann gefälscht sind.

    Dann noch einmal konkreter die Frage:

    1. Zertifiziert MSC heute irgendwelchen Fisch mit einem Rückverfolgbarkeits-Zertifikat, der über die beim „Outlaw Ocean Project“ identifizierten Unternehmen zu Ihnen kommt?
    2. Unabhängig von der Antwort auf Punkt 1, wie stellt MSC auf der chinesischen Seite sicher, dass der entsprechend gelabelte Fisch tatsächlich nicht mit Fisch problematischer Herkunft gemischt wird? Geht das überhaupt?

    Wir veröffentlichen unseren Bericht dazu voraussichtlich in der kommenden Woche in der „Zeit��, so dass ich für eine Rückmeldung bis Dienstag um 12:00 Uhr MEZ dankbar wäre, die können wir dann noch berücksichtigen. Mit freundlichen Grüßen"

    Andrea Harmsen, MSC PR Manager Germany/Austria/Switzerland, replied. A summary of the email in English: The MSC’s traceability standard requires companies certified to the MSC traceability standard to accurately record and document every entry and exit of MSC fish. The email added that annual inspections by independent auditors examine the company’s processes for the separation and identification of goods, including storage, processing, and comparing the weight of MSC fish purchased by the company against weight of sale. It also said that the certification standard establishes a fully documented supply chain for each MSC-labeled product.

    The email in its original language said: "Unternehmen, die nach dem MSC-Rückverfolgbarkeitsstandard zertifiziert sind (und nur diese) sind berechtigt, Fisch von MSC-zertifizierten Fischereien als MSC-Ware weiterzuverkaufen.

    Unser Rückverfolgbarkeitsstandard schreibt diesen Unternehmen vor, dass sie jeden Warenein- und Warenausgang von MSC-Fisch exakt festhalten und dokumentieren müssen. In jährlich stattfindenden Kontrollen durch unabhängige Auditoren werden die Prozesse der Warentrennung und Warenidentifizierung im Unternehmen begutachtet. Diese Kontrollen umfassen alle Prozessstufen des Unternehmens – vom Wareneingang über die Warenlagerung bis zur Verarbeitung/Produktion und zum Verkauf. Ebenso werden die vom Unternehmen eingekauften Mengen an MSC-Fisch den verkauften Mengen an MSC-Fisch gegenübergestellt, um sicherzustellen, dass ein Unternehmen nicht mehr MSC-Fisch verkauft, als es eingekauft hat.

    Durch die verpflichtende Rückverfolgbarkeits-Zertifizierung jeder einzelnen Stufe der Lieferkette von MSC-zertifiziertem Fisch wird für jedes Produkt mit MSC-Siegel auch eine voll dokumentierte und extern auf Warentrennung und Warenidentifizierung auditierte Lieferkette aufgebaut. Vom Hafen, bis zum Supermarktregal. So haben VerbraucherInnen eine hohe Gewissheit, dass mit dem MSC-Siegel gekennzeichnete Produkte auch tatsächlich aus einer nachhaltigen, MSC-zertifizierten Fischerei stammen.

    Ich hoffe, dies beantwortet Ihre Fragen"

    Die Zeit emailed the MSC in Germany. A summary of the email in English: The Outlaw Ocean Project’s investigation found that specific companies had received MSC certification, but were linked to problematic fishing practices and with forced labor in China. Specifically concerning the German market, Die Zeit asked the MSC whether and how it ensures that MSC-certified catch does not have problematic origins.

    The email in its original language said: "Vielen Dank für Ihre Mail. Wir greifen dieses Thema jetzt in unserer kommenden Ausgabe (Redaktionsschluss Montagmittag um 12:00) auf.

    Im Zuge der Recherchen durch das Outlaw Ocean Project war es ja um sehr konkrete Unternehmen gegangen, die laut den Erkenntnissen des Rechercheverbundes eine MSC-Zertifizierung erhalten hatten, aber dann trotzdem mit problematischen Fangpraktiken und mit Zwangsarbeit in China in Verbindung gebracht werden konnten. Dazu hatte es Antworten von Ihren internationalen Kolleginnen (Jo Miller, Jackie Marks) an die Rechercheure in Washington gegeben.

    Meine Frage bezog sich jetzt konkret auf den deutschen Markt - ob und wie nach Ihrer Kenntnis sichergestellt wird, dass MSC-zertifizierter Fang keine problematische Herkunft dieser Art hat.

    Gibt es dazu noch eine konkretere Antwort, oder ist Ihr Schreiben vom 23.10. da das ultimative?"

    Andrea Harmsen, MSC PR Manager Germany/Austria/Switzerland, replied. A summary of the email in English: The MSC is primarily an environmental organization that promotes sustainable, environmentally compatible fishing of the seas, and none of the fisheries observed by The Outlaw Ocean Project, or addressed in Die Zeit’s report, are MSC certified. The certification of processing plants according to the MSC traceability standard means that a fish product bearing the MSC seal is very likely to actually contain fish from a sustainable, MSC-certified fishery. This also applies to all MSC-labeled fish products available in Germany. With the MSC’s recent introduction of an additional requirement for processing plants to be audited by an external, independent and internationally recognized social standard setter, such as SEDEX, the organization aims to support industry-wide efforts to reduce forced labor risk in the supply chain, and it is now concerned about the demonstrated limitations of this independent verification.

    The email in its original language said: "Zu Ihrer Frage, wie und in welcher Hinsicht der MSC in Deutschland – ebenso wie weltweit – sicherstellen kann, dass Produkte mit MSC-Siegel keine problematische Herkunft haben, lässt sich Folgendes sagen:

    Der MSC ist in erster Linie eine Umweltorganisation, die sich für eine nachhaltige, umweltverträgliche Befischung der Meere einsetzt. Die unabhängige Zertifizierung von Fischereien nach dem MSC-Umweltstandard stellt sicher, dass Fisch, der in Deutschland oder andernorts mit dem MSC-Siegel verkauft wird, aus einer ökologisch nachhaltigen Fischerei stammt. Der MSC-Umweltstandard gilt als der weltweit strengste und transparenteste Standard für nachhaltige Fischerei. Keine der vom OOP beobachteten oder im Bericht angesprochenen Fischereien ist MSC-zertifiziert.

    Die Zertifizierung von Verarbeitungsbetrieben nach dem MSC-Rückverfolgbarkeitsstandard bewirkt, dass sich in einem Fischprodukt, das das MSC-Siegel trägt, mit großer Wahrscheinlichkeit auch tatsächlich Fisch aus einer nachhaltigen, MSC-zertifizierten Fischerei befindet. Dies gilt auch für alle in Deutschland erhältlichen Fischprodukte mit MSC-Siegel.

    Mit der kürzlich eingeführten, zusätzlichen Verpflichtung für Verarbeitungsbetriebe, sich durch einenexternen, unabhängigen und international anerkannten Sozialstandardsetzer wie z.B. SEDEX prüfen zu lassen, wollen wir die branchenweiten Bemühungen um eine Verringerung des Zwangsarbeits-Risikos in der Lieferkette unterstützen – und sind nun besorgt über die aufgezeigten Grenzen, die diese unabhängige Überprüfung offenkundig unter manchen Umständen hat. Mit freundlichen Grüßen."

    The Outlaw Ocean Project provided the following information regarding the investigation's findings to Die Zeit, for sharing with the MSC in Germany: “The Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) operates two certification programs: one is focused on sustainable fisheries and fishing practices, and the other concerns the chain of custody after catch has been landed. Seafood plants are certified under the MSC’s Chain of Custody Standard. The MSC itself says of this: “The Standard ensures an unbroken chain where certified seafood is identifiable, segregated and can be traced back to another certified business. This system allows businesses and consumers to be confident that seafood with the blue MSC label has come from a fishery certified as sustainable.” (Our investigation, however, found that behaviors like transshipment at sea to reefers or to other fishing boats raise questions about the reliability of traceability of catch from vessel to plant.)

    Here are a list of the plants the investigation found tied to Uyghur forced labor and their relevant MSC certification number: Qingdao Lian Yang Aquatic Products Co. Ltd. MSC-C-50870 Qingdao Tianyuan Aquatic Products Co. Ltd. MSC-C-52638 Rizhao Jiayuan Foodstuff Co. Ltd. MSC-C-56475 Rizhao Meijia Keyuan Foods Co. Ltd. MSC-C-53370 Rizhao Rirong Aquatic Products Co. Ltd. MSC-C-55351 Rizhao Rongxing Food Co. Ltd. MSC-C-53499 Rongcheng Haibo Ocean Food Co. Ltd. MSC-C-59738 Shandong Haidu Ocean Food Co. Ltd. MSC-C-57659 Yantai Longwin Foods Co. Ltd. MSC-C-51481 Yantai Sanko Fisheries Co. Ltd. MSC-C-51794

    The MSC has made some efforts to incorporate concerns about forced labor and child labor into its certification programs over the last decade, as it outlines on its website, but it does rely on self-assessment by the companies themselves (meaning the ones who want to be certified) and audits by third parties that may not be designed to find the kind of forced labor that China’s Uyghur population is subjected to.

    Our correspondence with the MSC can be found in the Discussion tool. The Findings page includes a portion on the 'Failure of Private Sector Safeguards' which gives more detail on the auditing gaps concerning forced labor in seafood factories. There’s also a whole section on auditing in the Solutions page which includes issues regarding the Marine Stewardship Council and which you may find useful.”

    Email sent to Jackie Marks for the MSC, saying: "Our ongoing investigation into the use of forced labor in China’s seafood processing industry has uncovered evidence of North Koreans working in more seafood plants in Liaoning province. Some of these plants are currently MSC certified: Dandong Yuanyi Refined Seafoods, Dandong Taifeng Foodstuff, Donggang Jinhui Foodstuff and Donggang Haimeng Foodstuff. We understand from our previous engagements with the MSC that social audits or a self-assessment of labor practices are a precursor for MSC chain-of-custody certifications for plants. Do you have insights on why North Korean workers inside the plants have not been, or are not being, identified through these audits?

    We are also seeking a response from the MSC on each of the following: 1) Our investigation found that social audits have not been checking directly and explicitly for the two most widespread forms of state-sponsored forced labor in China (Xinjiang and North Korean), both of which have stand alone US laws tied to them (UFLPA and CATSA). Does the MSC have any plans or proposals on how to tackle this? 2) We have heard that there is a lack of unannounced audits at Chinese processing plants because auditors face pressure from the Chinese government over unannounced spot checks. Doesn't the lack of unannounced audits undermine the reliability of the current auditing system? 3) Audits at processing plants only go to a limited depth in terms of the supply chain and do not check for violations on or by the ships supplying those plants - an ongoing blind spot in which at-sea human rights abuses and IUU occur. How can the seafood industry in general, and certification bodies like the MSC in particular, plug this gap? As ever, we appreciate the MSC’s engagement on the issues raised in our research and reporting."

    Jackie Marks replied for the MSC: "Thank you for your email and details of your continuing investigation. We understand that the focus of your continued investigation is on social audits. In our previous email correspondence with you, we explained the role of independent third-party social audits in determining whether a seafood processor is eligible for inclusion in MSC’s Chain of Custody program. I would be grateful if you could refer to this correspondence, in relation to your current queries. You ask about at-sea conditions. As we said in previous correspondence, the MSC is an environmental not-for-profit. Our goal is to end overfishing – a huge and complex challenge facing our ocean and the MSC’s Fishery Standard is founded on environmental requirements. We make no claims about setting standards on labor. However, we do recognize the importance of this issue and we continue to explore how we can work with others to address it in global supply chains."

    "Thanks for your email. We know the MSC is an environmental organization, but it also mandates prerequisite social audits as part of the MSC’s certification process for processing plants. Clearly those audits have not been successful at identifying Xinjiang or North Korean workers. Does that present a problem for the MSC? Does the MSC have any concerns that the social audits are not identifying Xinjiang or North Korean labor in Chinese seafood processing plants that are certified by the MSC? Has the MSC raised questions with relevant auditing bodies about the fitness for purpose of the audit programs currently in place? How is MSC engaging with auditing bodies to make the necessary changes such that auditors are better prepared to identify these forms of state-sanctioned forced labor?" The email also included a link to the 'Discussion' tool on The Outlaw Ocean Project's website cataloging the dialogue with the MSC to date.

    The Outlaw Ocean Project's publishing partner, The New Yorker, sent the following query to the MSC ahead of publication: "I'm writing from the fact checking department at The New Yorker, where I'm working with the writer Ian Urbina on an upcoming piece about North Korean labor in China. The piece discusses the use of social audits, mentioning the Marine Stewardship Council, and I wanted to run a few things by you. Could you please let me know by EOD Tuesday, Feb. 20, if there are any inaccuracies, and if you would like to comment on anything? Thanks very much.

    1. Marine Stewardship Council grants certification to companies if they have passed social audits or other types of assessments.
    2. You told Ian's team that the social audits are conducted by a third party, not by MSC itself.
    3. You said that the MSC makes no claims about setting standards on labor.
    4. You are the head of public relations at MSC."

    Susannah Henty, Senior PR Manager at the MSC, sent the following email to The Outlaw Ocean Project's publishing partner, The New Yorker:

    "Thanks for getting in touch. As Jackie isn’t working this email got forwarded to me, I work in the MSC’s global team. Can you tell me when this story is coming out?

    You are correct we liaised with Ian’s research team, but we shared quite a bit of additional context and some of this isn’t quite right in the editing.

    Your first line/Q1 isn’t accurate, because it misunderstands our role. The MSC is an environmental not-for profit organisation, and our ecolabel indicates that seafood comes from an ecologically sustainable fishery. However, the MSC as an organisation does not ‘grant certification’, we set the standards. Gaining environmental performance or chain of custody certification is decided by accredited Conformity Assessment Bodies (CABs), organisations independent to the MSC which carry out detailed assessments to score fisheries, using data and evidence, related to the MSC Standard’s requirements.

    Whilst Q3 is correct, we don’t set standards on labor, in response to Q2 and 3, you need to understand MSC’s ‘Labour Eligibility Requirements’. This means that since 2014, if a company is convicted of forced labour, they are not eligible for our programme. In 2019, we introduced requirements that some certified supply chain companies – such as processors and packing companies - must either provide a valid labour audit from credible and independent third-party provider or provide a self-assessment against a designated set of criteria. If they opt for a self-assessment, they must also allow MSC to commission a labour audit, if called upon to do so, at any time. This is an eligibility requirement they must meet prior, and in order to be allowed to be assessed against MSC’s environmental and chain of custody standards.

    Jackie is not the head of PR, she is senior PR manager for MSC’s US team."

    The Outlaw Ocean Project emailed the MSC:

    "Since we were last in contact with you, we have spoken with several academics and labor rights experts about the role of social audits, corporate social responsibility programs and ethical certifications as industry tools for detecting labor abuses in the seafood supply chain. We have compiled their insights below together with relevant recent research on the topic and have some further questions for the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC). The experts consulted for this included: Dr. Jessica Sparks, Assistant Professor in the Division of Agriculture, Food and Environment at Tufts University; Dr. Katrina Nakamura, Labor Safe Screen and the Sustainability Incubator; and Chris Williams of the International Transport Workers’ Federation (ITF).

    As before, we very much appreciate your continued engagement and discussion on the issues impacting workers throughout the seafood supply chain, and we would be very interested to hear your views on the below details as well as any updates you have on your investigation.

    Social audits: ‘Profoundly flawed and ineffective’ A growing body of academic research has found that social audits and industry certifications fail to adequately protect workers as they do not detect, address or prevent labor abuses. The findings of these reports and the views expressed by the experts we spoke to raised questions over the ongoing reliance by the MSC – and the seafood industry more widely – on social audits and voluntary adherence to corporate social responsibility programs, with researchers saying that neither is considered an effective worker- driven due diligence tool effective at identifying labor abuses. “Study after study has found that tools like social auditing and ethical certification are profoundly flawed and ineffective when it comes to the worst forms of labor exploitation,” Genevieve LeBaron, professor of politics at the University of Sheffield, said in an article for the Thomson Reuters Foundation. “Investigations measuring whether and to what extent corporate social responsibility commitments – such as to living wages, ending gender-based violence, or promoting human rights – continuously find little evidence that standards are being realized on the ground.” One of the key failings in the methodology of audits and certs is that they do not rely on input from workers, as researchers from the University of Nottingham found in their analysis of auditable standards and industry certificates relating to the fishing industry: “While these approaches may build transparency, consensus, and action when setting environmental standards, they disempower workers by allowing outside actors to overshadow worker perspectives or by the outright exclusion of workers from determining what issues need to be addressed and the processes and responsibilities for addressing them,” the researchers said in a paper published in Marine Policy in 2022.

    Research shows that audits can compound the problem by giving the misleading impression of workplace practices being fully above board when auditors are instead failing to find or report abusive behaviors. “In other words, a company might be technically complying with an initiative’s standards, but that compliance may be insufficient to address the specific abuse at which the standard is targeted,” the Institute for Multi-Stakeholder Initiative Integrity said in its 2020 report on corporate accountability and human rights. “Thus, harms could persist despite a member being deemed compliant.” This in turn, researchers say, gives consumers and legislators false confidence that industry is adequately addressing forced labor and other workplace abuses without need for further regulatory oversight.

    Researchers have also found that the confidential nature of audits means that adverse findings are easier to dismiss or silence, and so offer little support to workers with grievances. “[Audits] come with no meaningful role for workers and their organizations, and virtually no repercussions for the brands when workers’ rights are abused or their safety is put at risk,” openDemocracy has said. “This enables brands to silence findings and walk away if the code of conduct auditors find problems too difficult to fix.”

    Our investigation into forced labor in Chinese seafood processing found that all ten of the plants tied to Uyghur forced labor had been certified by the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC), and four by the Aquaculture Stewardship Council (ASC). We found evidence of Uyghurs working at processing plants within days of visits from auditors, including in one case on the very same day that an audit was conducted by the leading social auditor, S.G.S. Five of the fifteen plants that our investigation found to be using North Korean workers were certified by the MSC. Social audits were conducted by leading firms in those five plants, three by Intertek and two by S.C.S. One of those plants also passed a social audit conducted by the auditing firm BCI Compliance Group in December 2022. None of the audits detected the use of North Korean labor.

    The MSC said that a recent update to their certification program would “provide seafood buyers and consumers with greater assurances” that certified companies did not use forced or child labor, but certificates were issued after all ten processing plants had accepted Uyghurs through government transfers. In response to the findings, the MSC acknowledged it was reliant on social audit, and was now concerned about the “demonstrated limitations of this independent verification, which is evident in some circumstances.” Sedex – the author of the world’s most widely used social audit standard, and the one used in all known audits of plants tied to Uyghur labor – told us that it was “difficult and risky for auditors themselves to explicitly recognise state-imposed forced labor” that “may have been covered up.”

    Recent research on social audits has also raised concerns about the independence of auditors. Given that third-party auditors work as contractors and consultants, there is a high risk of conflict of interest for auditors who have an incentive to make, or overlook, particular findings so as to ensure repeat business from various stakeholders. "Therefore, it is important that companies are involved in other types of measures, such as direct engagement with unions and other groups that represent rights holders and participation in credible multi-stakeholder initiatives," the Danish Institute of Human Rights said in a recently-published due diligence guide for companies in the fisheries value chain. On the subject of bolstering audits, Sparks told us: “The gold standard for a social audit would require a legally binding commitment so that a company has to continue to use the same auditing body regardless of their findings (and that investigative/auditing body needs to be highly trained, use investigators that speak the language of the workers, etc.). This is what occurs in the Fair Food Program and other worker-driven social responsibility models.”

    Announced audits were of particular concern among the experts we spoke to as an insufficiently robust method of checking worker welfare and accurately gauging conditions because the workplace knows exactly when the auditors are coming on site. As Chris Williams of the International Transport Workers’ Federation (ITF) said: “Any audit or inspection that is announced is unlikely to detect problems, it's like telling a drug dealer you are going to raid their property at 6pm next Tuesday; it is only unannounced inspections that are likely to uncover wrongdoing and issues around forced labor.”

    ‘Worker-led human rights due diligence’ Direct engagement with workers is fundamental to developing and implementing meaningful labor protections, according to myriad recent reports on the topic, including from the Danish Institute of Human Rights in 2024, the International Labour Organization in 2023, and the Institute for Multi- Stakeholder Initiative Integrity in 2020. “Even worker grievance mechanisms tied to social audits do not improve data verifiability or assurances of working conditions,” according to this study in Marine Policy. “This is because the voluntary, non-governmental social governance tools are not associated with meaningful company engagement of workers.” The level of worker engagement in social audits and corporate responsibility programs was a point that came up repeatedly in our discussions with labor rights researchers. They questioned a lack of clear human rights due diligence engagement with workers, and suggested more essential incorporation of workers’ views. Rather than rely on third-party audits such as the widely-used SMETA program, companies “should be steered towards worker-led or centered human rights due diligence that includes workers or unions in the design, monitoring and implementation,” said Williams.

    The sudden suspension of trade relations with companies at the center of workplace abuse allegations could leave workers in limbo, the experts warned, and limit the effectiveness of efforts to improve worker conditions. “While this might be an effective solution to eliminating risk in their supply chain, it does not alleviate the harm to workers, and could potentially put them at greater risk,” said Sparks. Williams of the ITF added: “What about protections and remedy for the workers affected?”

    Having a grievance procedure in place is a critical tool for hearing directly from workers about issues in the workplace, but that procedure must be carefully designed for the specific context of the workers involved. “The process, for example, must provide timely, affordable, and meaningful access to a procedure that is capable of addressing the violation, and the outcome must repair the harm of the violation,” the Danish Institute of Human Rights report said. “Ultimately, the question of whether harms against rights holders are, or could be, remediated by a remedial process is the central inquiry when examining the adequacy and effectiveness of remedial processes.” The experts we spoke to also emphasized the importance of designing grievance mechanisms with which workers can safely and effectively engage. Sparks said important elements to consider are: how workers prefer to report grievances, if cultural factors have been taken into consideration when designing the mechanism, if any barriers to reporting a grievance have been identified, and if the process is trusted by the workers themselves. Grievance mechanisms need to go beyond focusing on severe issues like forced labor, Sparks added, “towards preventing unacceptable conditions or even detecting unacceptable working conditions that may not reach the threshold of forced labor.”

    ‘China has not hidden its work programs and incentives’ The socio-political context of doing business in China was an important consideration among the experts to whom we spoke. American companies who use Chinese manufacturers or processors should be aware that they are working with partners who operate in a very different regulatory and legal context, they said, one that carries different labor abuse risks, such as North Korean forced labor. They added that U.S. companies should inform and update their trading partners overseas about U.S. regulatory or legislative requirements that could impact on imports from that company, such as the Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act in 2017 or the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act of 2022. “US companies should not try to defend their purchasing to date on the basis that their suppliers in China should operate as though they are not in China under its regulatory and legal frameworks,” said Nakamura. “It is not sufficient or meaningful for a U.S. company to say that its goods made in China along the North Korean border could not possibly be made by North Korean workers. As a business strategy, it won't work in China because it is not enforceable. China has not hidden its work programs and incentives for North Korean and Uyghur labor transfers in any way.”

    This also reflects the findings of our investigation into labor abuses in China’s seafood processing industry, particularly as regards the state-imported forced labor of Uyghurs which is actively promoted by the government, corporate groups and individual companies themselves. Company newsletters by one corporate entity, the Chishan Group, published multiple articles on the practicalities involved, including details of senior management cooperation with the agency involved in state transfers of Uygur labor, the arrival of Uyghur workers at the company’s sites in Shandong province, and special measures to provide a canteen for the Uyghurs.

    These issues arising from U.S. businesses engaging factories in China as part of their supply chains reflect concerns in the seafood industry generally. As you may be aware, the Aquaculture Stewardship Council announced last week that it is ceasing its operations and investment in China. The move came in the wake of our reporting on Uyghur and North Korean forced labor in China’s seafood processing industry.

    And the social auditing blind spots in China are not just a seafood problem. In December 2020, two shipments of clothes made at a factory in Dandong by North Korean workers were stopped at the port of Newark in violation of the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act, or CAATSA, which imposes heavy fines on companies that import products tied to North Korean labor. A representative of the clothing manufacturer protested the seizure and submitted two social audits as evidence that no forced labor existed at the plant. An administrative law judge subsequently denied their claim explaining that the social auditors who visited the plants likely made no effort to distinguish nationality so as to check for North Koreans, nor did the auditor speak Korean so as to interview any such workers.

    In July 2021, the U.S. State Department said in a business advisory that social audits, especially in China, are inadequate for identifying forced labor because auditors are commonly detained or harassed, audits often rely on government translators, and workers face reprisals for reporting abuses. And in November 2023, U.S. Customs and Border Protection advised companies that a social audit can only be used as credible evidence clearing a company accused of forced labor if it was unannounced, addressed all indicators of forced labor, and conducted interviews in workers’ native languages. These conditions are rarely met for social audits conducted in China, according to various human rights groups such as the Worker Rights Consortium, which offered testimony before a Senate hearing in February 2023.

    Ultimately, social audits and industry certifications are just two elements in a wider systemic problem of companies relying on corporate social responsibility to address industry abuses and shortcomings without making structural changes that can have a meaningful impact on labor conditions, according to researchers. As OpenDemocracy put it: “The same models get tried and tried again, yielding disappointing results, yet advocates of CSR [corporate social responsibility] continue to declare that the next time will be different.”

    “Social audits are designed to show the firm in a good light, not a bad light,” Nakamura told us. “By design and intent, social standards are market-based promotional instruments used to deflect liability and not problem-solving or investigative tools to enforce labor and trade laws or detect violations.”

    Questions for the MSC:

    1. Many of the experts we spoke to said there are certain issues in China that are too politically sensitive to raise, such as human rights generally or more specifically the treatment of North Korean or Uyghur workers. We’ve been told by experts that if auditors raise those hot button issues in writing or otherwise there’s a very good chance that the firm conducting the audits will not be allowed to continue operating in China. Will you comment on this inherent challenge and the way that these issues are supposed to be policed?

    2. Many of the prior questions we’ve asked the MSC about audits concern actions that may not be feasible in China because of the nature of the government there. If this is true and indeed direct interviews with workers and unannounced spot checks are not permitted, has the MSC considered relocating its work outside of China?

    3. In your email of July 5, 2023, you described the role of labor audits in MSC certification as follows: “We select certificate holders for MSC commissioned labor audits based on a statistically random sample. One of the four sites which opted for self-assessment, one was selected for a random audit and this did not raise any issues with forced labor. The random audits can be carried out using one of the five identified providers[i] or another provider of which we approve. As these are relatively new requirements, we are trying to identify the best provider and tool to use, but the intention is the same: to identify whether there are any issues with forced labor.” Flaws in the underlying auditing system imply that there is probably need for a broader review of all MSC-certified plants. Plants had documented cases of forced labor on the premises, but the auditing that should have caught the presence of those workers clearly failed. Does the MSC have any plans to undertake such a review?

    4. Some researchers have said there’s an inherent conflict of interest in the structure of auditing whereby the companies being audited are paying the auditing firms to do that work. This has been criticized as a system in which firms are being paid to police their own clients. What does the MSC think can be done to ensure that those conducting the audits are sufficiently independent of the companies and plants that they’re supposed to be policing?

    5. How does the MSC check or monitor auditor independence to address potential conflicts of interest? When, and how, does the MSC review third-party auditing standards or auditor training to determine if they are fit for purpose or if they need to be remodeled?

    6. Given gaps identified in the MSC self-assessments and third-party audits (for example, no requirement to identify migrant workers’ places of origin even where there is a risk of state-imposed forced labor), what has the MSC done, or is doing, to bridge such gaps? Has the MSC raised the issue of these gaps with the auditing providers approved by the MSC? More generally, what is the MSC doing to improve third-party audits?

    7. We’ve heard from experts and industry insiders that plants are frequently informed about an upcoming audit which is supposed to be ‘unannounced’ and that unannounced audits are not possible in practice in China, thereby fundamentally undermining the basic premise of such an audit. Does the MSC have any proposals for addressing this?

    8. What are the consequences, if any, following the discovery of previously undetected unacceptable work conditions missed by third-party audit? And what remedy does the MSC offer the affected workers?

    9. Does the MSC carry out any monitoring or checks to see if auditors conducting audits for MSC certification are aware of any barriers which could deter workers from disclosing abusive practices or mistreatment? Does the MSC take any steps to help identify and remove these barriers?

    10. Aside from audits, is the MSC considering or implementing any other tools to support the protection of human rights and prevention of labor abuses?

    11. Does the MSC engage with any worker organizations, unions or federations as part of its human rights efforts? Was there any worker input in developing the MSC’s eligibility requirements on forced labor or the MSC’s chain of custody standard?

    12. Does the MSC have procedures to respond to human need with direct assistance when such need is detected at sites certified by the MSC?"

    The MSC replied: "MSC is an environmental not-for-profit whose mission is to end overfishing. While this is our main purpose, we do support global efforts to tackle forced and child labor in seafood supply chains. However, as your email demonstrates, there is no simple or single answer to these complex and difficult issues. In 2022, MSC updated its pre-entry requirements to our program, relating to forced and child labor. In some circumstances, processors were required to provide an audit from a credible third-party labor scheme. In the light of recent events, we are now revisiting these requirements. In part, this is due to the fact that one of the main providers of these audits recently acknowledged their limitations in identifying forced labor. The environmental challenges facing the ocean are, frankly speaking, enormous. We believe the greatest impact that MSC can make is to continue to focus on this global challenge through our environmental standard setting and ecolabelling program. Delivering progress in sustainable fishing will support the livelihoods of communities around the world. However, we also understand the importance of labor issues for seafood supply chains, and we are exploring a revised approach to forced and child labor– one which is both practical , supports global efforts and is in line with MSC’s environmental remit.

    We will announce the outcome of this, in due course."

    Future correspondence will be added here as this conversation continues.