According to ILO Migration for Employment Convention (Revised), 1949 (No. 97), the term “migrant for employment” (or, more commonly, “migrant worker”) means a person who “migrates from one country to another with a view to being employed otherwise than on his [or her] own account”. The UN Convention for the Protection of the Rights of Migrant Workers and their Families includes a similar definition. Migrant labour is the work undertaken by someone considered a migrant.

Two main ILO conventions comprehensively define the rights of migrant workers and advocate the principles of equal treatment, equality of opportunity and non-discrimination:

• ILO Migration for Employment Convention (Revised), No. 97 (1949): The convention lays out how ratifying States must treat migrant workers and how to provide equal opportunities through law. It includes provisions to facilitate international migration for employment by establishing and maintaining a free assistance and information service and taking measures against misleading propaganda relating to emigration and immigration; provisions on appropriate medical services for migrant workers and the transfer of earnings and savings; and the requirement that States have to apply treatment no less favourable than that which applies to their own nationals in respect of a number of matters, including conditions of employment, freedom of association and social security.
• ILO Migrant Workers (Supplementary Provisions) Convention, No. 143 (1975): The convention focuses on how to prevent abusive conditions in migration and ensure the protection of the rights of migrant workers. It sets out measures to combat clandestine and illegal migration, while at the same time establishing the general obligation to respect the fundamental rights of all migrant workers. It also includes provisions on migrant workers’ cultural rights and individual and collective freedoms and the right of family reunification of the families of migrant workers legally residing in their territory.

The International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of their Families (ICRMW) builds upon and expands the ILO Conventions. It applies to all aspects of the life of migrant workers and members of their families, including the situation of women and children. The ICRMW articulates the principle of equal treatment between migrant workers and nationals with respect to remuneration and other working conditions, calling for equality of treatment regarding migrant workers’ and members of their families’ access to housing, social and health services, and educational institutions among others.

Over 50 countries have ratified ILO Convention No. 97, and nearly 30 have ratified ILO Convention No. 143. The ICRMW has also been ratified only by a small number of countries. The implementation and enforcement of national legislation — and therefore the frequency of violations of migrant workers’ rights — may vary significantly from country to country even if all the core conventions related to migrant workers have been ratified.

The UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs) set the global standard regarding the responsibility of business to respect human rights in their operations and across their value chains. The Guiding Principles call upon States to consider a smart mix of measures — national and international, mandatory and voluntary — to foster business respect for human rights.

Regional migrant worker instruments such as the European Social Charter and the European Convention on the Legal Status of Migrant Workers provide protection of social rights for migrant workers. The European Social Charter is a Council of Europe treaty that guarantees fundamental social and economic rights, with a specific emphasis on the protection of vulnerable persons, including migrants, whose social and economic rights must be guaranteed without discrimination. The European Convention on the Legal Status of Migrant Workers clarifies principal aspects of the legal situation of migrant workers, in particular recruitment, work permits, working conditions and dismissal among others.

Companies are increasingly subject to non-financial reporting requirements and due diligence obligations in the jurisdictions in which they operate, which often include disclosures on their performance. There are several high-profile examples of national legislation that specifically mandate human rights-related reporting and other positive legal duties, such as due diligence, including the United Kingdom Modern Slavery Act 2015, Australian Modern Slavery Act 2018, the California Transparency in Supply Chains Act 2010, the French Corporate Duty of Vigilance Law 2017, the German Act on Corporate Due Diligence Obligations in Supply Chains 2023 and the Norwegian Transparency Act 2022.

Also, in 2021 the Netherlands submitted a Bill for Responsible and Sustainable International Business Conduct, and the European Commission announced its Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD). This Directive is likely to come into force between 2025 and 2027 and will make human rights and environmental due diligence mandatory for larger companies.

These mandatory due diligence and disclosure laws require companies to publicly communicate their efforts to address actual and potential human rights impacts, including migrant labour abuses. Failure to comply with these obligations leads to real legal risk for companies.

The prevention of migrant worker abuse requires an understanding of its underlying causes and the consideration of a wide range of issues.

Key risk factors include:

• High levels of migration, particularly of low-skilled and low-paid labour, exacerbates the likelihood of labour rights violations as employers know many migrant workers will be vulnerable or desperate for work. Migrants make up a much larger proportion of those subject to forced labour in specific sectors and locations. Migrants who have their legal employment status tied to their employer under sponsorship visa programmes may be unwilling to report labour rights violations or may be unable to leave or return home without the explicit permission of the sponsor.
• The use of recruitment agencies and other labour intermediaries raises the risk of migrant workers facing labour rights abuses. Fraudulent recruitment practices may involve agencies, but also other types of formal and informal intermediaries, who exploit migrant workers’ vulnerability and impose excessive fees as part of the recruitment process. Such opaque practices often leave migrant workers in substantial debt leading to conditions amounting to forced labour or debt bondage. Furthermore, excessive or arbitrary wage deductions throughout the period of employment can create further debt for migrant workers.
• Inadequate legal and policy framework which fails to promote equality of treatment between migrant workers and nationals. The poor protections afforded to migrant workers offer them a low standard of legal protections against forced labour and other labour rights abuses. Labour legislation and workplace cultures in some countries, particularly in Gulf states that employ the kafala (sponsorship) system, explicitly provide for preferential treatment and higher payment for local workers than for migrant workers. A lack of strong laws against labour abuse or inadequate criminal sanctions can result in a lack of deterrence.
• Poor enforcement of domestic labour laws due to inadequate training, an under-resourced labour inspectorate or high levels of corruption.
• High levels of poverty and unemployment, low levels of social protection, and inequalities within a country or region, particularly where the informal economy constitutes a high percentage of the overall workforce. Where there is a lack of state support or formal contracts enshrining workplace rights, workers face greater vulnerability to poor working conditions. This can also cause racism, xenophobia and other discrimination against migrant workers as they may be seen as unwelcome or increasing competition for resources and jobs.
• Low wages and long working hours can force migrant workers to undertake dangerous or excessive work. Excessive working hours and wages that do not meet minimum wage laws may result in working poverty (see Living Wage and Working Time issues). Particularly where migrant workers are sending money to their home countries via remittances, they may undertake extreme working hours or overtime to make enough money.

Given labour migration is a global occurrence, there is migrant labour in every industry in almost every country in the world — and not all migrants work and live under problematic conditions. This issue focuses on three industries that are commonly identified with dangerous and discriminatory practices against migrant labour: construction, agriculture, and fashion and apparel. To identify potential risks for migrant workers in other industries, companies can access the CSR Risk Check.

Migrant labour is commonly found in the construction industry, in developed and developing countries. Construction — like agriculture — can be sensitive to economic, social, political and seasonal changes, which can mean highly uncertain working conditions for migrant workers. In some countries — such as the United Arab Emirates — up to 30% of the migrant labour pool is engaged in construction. Widespread abuses faced by migrant workers in the construction industry include fraudulent or exploitative practices, such as the withholding of identity documents, excessive working hours, arbitrary deductions or late payment of wages, and being made to work in unsafe working conditions, including not being provided with adequate personal protective equipment (PPE).

Construction-specific risk factors include the following:

• Difficult working conditions: Working conditions in construction are notoriously demanding and dangerous, with high levels of industrial accidents. Migrant workers are more vulnerable to being coerced into working in unsafe conditions that disregard occupational safety and health, especially where there are language barriers or a lack of knowledge of labour rights.
• Living accommodation: Migrant workers are often isolated and living in on-site or employer-provided accommodation, which gives employers control over workers. This often gives rise to risks of sub-standard accommodation or excessive wage deductions for accommodation or transport.
• Transferable skills: Construction skills are often transferable between projects and across countries, which means that workers may not be given specific training on their tasks or the safety and health procedures of a project. This can leave migrant workers vulnerable to abuse of rights and dangerous working conditions.
• Complexity of projects: The complexity of construction projects exacerbates a broad range of labour-related risks for migrant workers. Construction projects may involve hundreds of subcontractors. In many instances, contractors are not obliged to pay subcontractors until they have received payment from the client.
• Financial and economic changes: The sensitivity of construction projects to finance and economic changes can lead to periods of intense work. Migrant workers can be vulnerable to excessive working hours as they may want to earn as much as possible in short periods of time, which can result in unhealthy working time.

The fashion and apparel industry has many characteristics that make the exploitation of migrant workers more prevalent. Reports have highlighted that migrant workers were the worst affected in 2020 when international fashion brands cancelled orders from textile and apparel factories due to COVID-19 — particularly in Turkey and South-East Asia — resulting in unpaid wages and lost jobs for hundreds of thousands of workers.

Fashion and apparel specific risk factors include the following:

• Outsourcing: The industry uses a lot of outsourcing and home working, which makes it hard to trace where a product was made and by whom. This presents big risks for migrant workers who may be forced to work and live in dangerous circumstances, as labour inspectors are highly unlikely to ‘find’ them or witness these circumstances to foster change.
• Economic shifts: As with agriculture and construction, fashion and apparel manufacturing is vulnerable to economic changes, as seen in 2020 due to the economic downturn from COVID-19. This can leave garment workers without wages or work for long periods of time, which is particularly harmful to migrant workers who may not have secure homes, who may lose their visas or right to remain if they are not able to secure a new job and those whose ability to get other jobs is low.
• Labour abuses: Migrant workers in the fashion and apparel sector are vulnerable to wage and working time violations and occupational safety and health risks. This is due to challenges in the enforcement and application of labour laws, especially in the lower tiers of supply chains and subcontracting networks; a lack of specific legislation criminalizing the use of forced labour; weak monitoring of recruitment agencies and labour brokers; and increased international pressure to reduce production costs. Other factors include language barriers and cultural discrimination.

Agriculture is estimated by the ILO to employ around 1.3 billion people (2018) globally, around half of the world’s workforce, many of whom are migrant workers. The seasonal nature of agricultural work means that most agricultural workers are migrant workers who are able to relocate following seasonal patterns of harvesting, fish migration or livestock rearing.

Agriculture and fishing specific risk factors include the following:

• Subsistence workers: Migrant workers are particularly at risk of abuse in the agricultural industry as many live and work in a subsistence fashion, without any permanent accommodation or other form of income. This can result in employers taking advantage of workers and creating abusive conditions, such as excessive working hours, unsafe working environment, lack of PPE and withholding of wages.
• Worker accommodation: Reports show that temporary migrant worker accommodation in the agricultural sector has been a ‘hot spot’ for COVID-19 transmission during the global pandemic.
• Difficult to trace supply chains: Long supply chains and subcontracting make it difficult for businesses to ensure labour rights are respected for all workers, including migrant workers. Remote locations also mean labour inspections are less likely to occur, and workers are more likely to be isolated from their environment and therefore unable to reach out for assistance or to seek remedy.
• Dangerous work: Agricultural work is one of the most dangerous in the world according to the ILO. Migrant workers — particularly those who are undocumented or in an irregular situation — often do not have access to health care, so injuries or illnesses that result from agricultural work (such as heatstroke, repetitive strain injuries or exposure to chemicals) can go untreated, potentially leading to significant illness or injury.
• Fishing and whaling: Fishing and whaling are also dangerous occupations as they are mostly undertaken offshore where workers are vulnerable to dangerous tides, weather and storms. Fishing fleets can also stay at sea for months and even years, leaving workers extremely isolated, particularly if they have no access to the ship’s communication system. Fishing is heavily reliant on migrant labour and hard to monitor, which means that abusive labour practices are rife and workers are at high risk of being trapped on vessels or abused.

This section outlines due diligence steps that companies can take to respect migrant workers’ rights in their operations and supply chains. The described due diligence steps are aligned with the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs). Further information on UNGPs is provided in the ‘Key Human Rights Due Diligence Frameworks’ section below or in the Introduction.

While the below steps provide guidance on respecting migrant workers’ rights, in particular, it is generally more resource-efficient for companies to ‘streamline’ their human rights due diligence processes by also identifying and addressing other relevant human rights issues (e.g. child labour, forced labour, discrimination, freedom of association) at the same time.

It is important for businesses to include migrant workers in their policies regarding human rights, regardless of the nature of work, location of supply chain or industry of operation, due to the international prevalence of migrant workers. The Dhaka Principles are a helpful tool that can be used by businesses to support migrant workers in all stages of due diligence. Along these lines, a company may consider adopting codes of conduct to ensure that they demand equal employment and non-exploitation practices with regard to migrant workers. Policies could include commitments such as:

• Comply with national law relating to migrant workers at a minimum and aspire to adherence with international standards and best practice;
• Refrain from engaging in or supporting unequal treatment or exploitation of migrant workers in hiring, termination, remuneration, training, promotion or retirement;
• Avoid restrictions on migrant workers including the withholding of passports and other travel documents; and
• Enshrine clear guidelines with regard to recruitment practices (including those of suppliers and business partners where possible) that contain specific recommendations on recruitment fees and contracts.

Some companies publish stand-alone migrant workers policies, given migrant workers’ vulnerability to labour rights abuses in their industries — for example, UK fashion house Burberry, Swedish retailer H&M and tech company Hewlett-Packard. However, it is more common for businesses to integrate migrant labour into their human rights, responsible sourcing or diversity policies, with Unilever offering an example. Where companies do not have a stand-alone human rights policy, migrant labour is often addressed in other documentation, such as a business code of conduct or ethics and/or a supplier code of conduct.

Businesses may also consider aligning their policies with relevant industry-wide or cross-industry policy commitments, for example:

• Responsible Business Alliance (RBA) Code of Conduct
• amfori BSCI Code of Conduct
• Fair Labor Association (FLA) Code of Conduct
• World Employment Confederation (WEC) Fair Recruitment and Migration Policies

Upon identification of operations or segments of supply chains that rely heavily on migrant labour, companies should consider assessing actual and potential migrant labour impacts. Impact assessments should consider the following:

• Migrant workers are particularly vulnerable to abuse as their right to live or work in a country may be tied to a job with their employer (for instance a sponsorship system) or they may be working illegally and not want to risk losing their job and being exposed to authorities.
• Assessments should consider conducting off-site interviews as workers may not be comfortable talking about harmful work experiences on-site.
• There is also an increasing trend of assessing risks of labour rights violations through ‘worker voice’ tools, such as technology-enabled worker surveys. These can be easily adapted to different languages to accommodate migrant workers’ needs.

Migrant labour impact assessments are usually undertaken as part of broader human rights risk assessments. The requirement to engage with potentially affected stakeholders is key. Nike offers an example of a company conducting a risk assessment focused specifically on recruitment practices of migrant workers through Verité’s CUMULUS Forced Labor Screen^TM tool.

The actions and systems that a company will need to apply will vary depending on the outcomes of its impact assessment. For example, companies could consider conducting training on migrant workers’ rights for employees most likely to encounter migrant workers, such as procurement, human resources and supply chain personnel. Training sessions on migrant labour can also be offered to suppliers. Training might include reference to the relevant international standards and reporting lines, and could be updated in-line with new innovations and adjustments to best practices.

Companies might also consider adapting existing worker training programmes to accommodate migrant workers more easily. This might include, for example, the offer of local language courses to improve communication and enhance productivity and worker safety. Additional training and orientation programmes could also be provided to migrant workers to ensure that they have access to equal opportunities in the workplace and to support their assimilation into the local community.

A company may opt to recruit migrant workers directly rather than through the use of brokers. Any brokers used should be reviewed carefully to ensure that they comply fully with all laws for protecting migrant workers by way of carrying out due diligence (see IOM resources on ethical recruitment). A company may also choose to publish and communicate guidance on its expectations regarding the recruitment and employment of migrant workers, including by business partners and suppliers. In situations where the risk of exploitation may be higher in supply chains, a company may wish to incentivize suppliers to improve their recruitment practices. This can be done, for example, by providing preferential terms to suppliers who recruit directly.

Multi-stakeholder initiatives (MSIs) can provide the necessary expertise, guidance and economies of scale to address migrant labour problems in a responsible, sector-specific way. Such MSIs can also help companies learn from different stakeholder groups including business, Government, civil society and intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations. An example is the partnership between the International Organisation for Migration (IOM) and H&M in 2019, which promotes cooperation in relation to the ethical recruitment of migrant workers in global textile supply chains. Other MSIs include those by the Fair Labor Association and the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm oil, both of which run campaigns on migrant labour.

Businesses should regularly review their approach to migrant worker rights to see if it continues to be effective and is having the desired impact. Audits and social monitoring are common ways to check performance in the first tier of the supply chain. Such monitoring or audits can be undertaken internally by the company or by a third party contracted by the company. Operations and supply chains can be audited to understand the way migrant workers are treated and the rights they are afforded — such as their wages, working hours and living conditions — as well as whether they have access to their own documentation (such as passports) and whether they have been charged any recruitment fees. Common supplier audit frameworks that span most industries and include migrant labour indicators include SMETA audits and SA8000 accredited audits. The amfori BSCI Code of Conduct also provides guidance on how to mitigate negative social impacts on migrant workers.

A common approach or first step taken by companies is to issue self-assessment questionnaires (SAQs) to suppliers, requesting information and evidence on their migrant labour procedures, such as whether suppliers have implemented monitoring measures to identify the groups most vulnerable to forced labour, whether recruitment agencies are used in the recruitment process, which agencies are used and how they ensure the respect of migrant workers’ rights. Repeated SAQs can give insight into improvements in supplier management systems and let suppliers self-report on actual or potential migrant worker rights issues. Where SAQ results warrant it, companies can carry out on-the-ground or remote suppliers audits.

Examples of questions to include in social audits or SAQs are as follows:

• Do migrant workers have the freedom to terminate employment (by means of notice of reasonable length) at any time without a penalty?
• Have migrant workers paid a recruitment fee, or do they owe money from their wages to a recruiter?
• Have important documents, such as a visa, right to work, or passports, been withheld from migrant workers by the employer?

If shortcomings are identified, corrective action plans (CAPs) should be developed jointly with the supplier, setting out clear targets and milestones for improvement. Progress should then be tracked regularly to ensure CAP completion. Setting SMART targets helps track performance. SMART targets are those that are: specific, measurable, attainable, resourced and time-bound. Examples of indicators to be recorded and monitored include:

• Grievances from migrant workers recorded (number and nature)
• Audit findings on violations of migrant workers’ rights
• Progress on corrective action plans
• Media reports on instances of abuse of migrant workers
• Official inspection outcomes

Due diligence processes should be regularly checked and continuously improved to ensure that the information collected for these targets is as accurate as possible. This includes checking the effectiveness of grievance mechanisms (i.e. their accessibility to migrant workers), the quality of audits, etc. Responsibility for data collection should be clearly allocated to relevant roles within the company and reported with a set frequency (for instance once a month).

Although both SAQs and audits are commonly used by companies in various industries, both tools have limitations in their ability to uncover hidden violations, including violations of migrant worker rights. Unannounced audits somewhat mitigate this problem but even these are not always effective at identifying violations given that an auditor tends to spend only limited time on-site. Furthermore, human rights violations, including migrant workers’ rights, often happen further down supply chains, whereas audits often only cover ‘Tier 1’ suppliers.

New tools such as technology-enabled worker surveys/‘worker voice’ tools allow real-time monitoring and partly remedy the problems of traditional audits. An increasing number of companies complement traditional audits with ‘worker voice’ surveys (e.g. Unilever and VF Corporation), which can be easily adapted to different languages to accommodate migrant workers’ needs and anonymized so workers don’t fear reprisal.

Some companies go further and adopt ‘beyond audit’ approaches, which are built on proactive collaboration with suppliers rather than on supplier monitoring (‘carrots’ rather than ‘sticks’). Collaborating with other stakeholders, including workers’ organizations, law enforcement authorities, labour inspectorates and non-governmental organizations to proactively identify, remediate and prevent abuse of migrant worker rights can also prove to be effective.

Companies are expected to communicate their performance on respecting migrant workers’ rights in a formal public report, which can take the form of a standalone report such as Nestlé’s Responsible Sourcing of Seafood reports. More commonly, however, an update on progress is included in a broader sustainability or human rights report such as Unilever’s Human Rights reports, or in an annual Communication on Progress (CoP) in implementing the Ten Principles of the UN Global Compact. Additionally, other forms of communication may include in-person meetings, online dialogues and consultation with affected stakeholders.

Grievance mechanisms can play an important role in helping address migrant labour issues in operations and supply chains (e.g. Hewlett-Packard). In addition to conventional channels such as those using a hotline, an emerging ‘worker voice’ technology allows workers to submit grievances in real-time through text messages and without fear of reprisal.

Remediation of migrant worker rights issues can be complex, as they may have implications on a worker’s right to reside in a particular country, so it is recommended that legal advice is sought. Ensuring that remediation approaches consider the safety and wellbeing of migrant workers is crucial, particularly if they appear to have been trafficked or are under the control of a gangmaster or another illegal group.

Companies could use the results of impact assessments to determine corrective actions, with the most severe impacts prioritized. Some companies may decide that — as a last resort — a failure to remediate or correct the situation should result in termination of the relationship with the offending supplier. Companies should try to resolve issues with the supplier first though, to prevent termination leading to worse positions for workers. Examples of companies with migrant labour remediation programmes include Nike.

This section includes examples of company actions to prevent abuse of migrant workers in their operations and supply chains.

Examples of further guidance on migrant workers include:

• ILO, The Multilateral Framework on Labour Migration: Non-binding principles and guidelines for a rights-based approach to labour migration, which aim to assist Governments, social partners and stakeholders in their efforts to regulate labour migration and protect migrant workers.
• ILO, Fair Migration Agenda: The ILO campaign to ensure fair migration and labour conditions for migrants has a range of information, tools and publications.
• ILO, Global Study on Recruitment Fees and Related Costs: A global study that examines the laws and policies of 90 countries, as well as numerous bilateral labour agreements and multi-stakeholder initiatives to regulate or prohibit recruitment fees and costs charged to workers.
• ILO, General Principles and Operational Guidelines for Fair Recruitment and Definition of Recruitment Fees and Related Costs: These guidelines provide definitions and explanations of key terms related to recruitment fees.
• ILO, How to Facilitate the Recognition of Skills of Migrant Workers: This guide for employers and employment service providers gives information on identifying the needs and capabilities of migrant workers and how to accommodate them in the workplace, particularly in recruitment.
• ILO, Ending Child Labour, Forced Labour And Human Trafficking In Global Supply Chains: This report aims to help businesses develop policies and practices to protect global supply chains from certain human rights issues, including abuses against migrant workers.
• ILO-IOM, Promoting Fair and Ethical Recruitment in a Digital World: Lessons and Policy Options: This joint ILO-IOM report maps four examples of existing State-facilitated digital technology platforms that assist the recruitment, placement and/or job matching for migrant workers.
• ILO, For Women, by Women: Guidance and Activities for Building Women Migrant Workers’ Networks: This guidance outlines how migrant women’s groups can be catalyzed and supported.
• OHCHR and CMW, General Comments No. 1 – 5: The general comments offered by the CMW provide insight into the human rights violations migrant workers face, detailing expert opinion on specific themes and legal obligations of State parties to the instruments that define these rights. General Comment No. 5 specifically details migrants’ rights to liberty, freedom from arbitrary detention and their connection with other human rights, with a contextual focus on the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic.
• IOM, Ending Child Labour, Forced Labour and Human Trafficking in Global Supply Chains: This guidance highlights the challenges faced by migrant workers and how business can work with Government to prevent migrant labour abuse.
• OHCHR, ‘We wanted workers, but human beings came’: Human rights and temporary labour migration programmes: This report looks at the consequences of temporary labour migration programmes (TLMPs) on migrant workers and their families, and offers recommendations on how to design and implement comprehensive labour migration pathways that offer human rights-based alternatives to TLMPs.
• Fair Labor Association, Triple Discrimination: Woman, Pregnant and Migrant, Preventing Pregnancy Discrimination among Temporary Migrant Workers, Lessons for Malaysia, Taiwan and Thailand: Guidance for employers to avoid multi-factored discrimination against migrant women in supply chains.
• SME Compass, Standards Compass: This online tool offers guidance on what to pay attention to when selecting sustainability standards or when participating in multi-stakeholder initiatives. It allows comparing standards and initiatives with respect to their contribution to human rights due diligence and their potential limitations.
• SME Compass, Due Diligence Compass: This online tool offers guidance on the overall human rights due diligence process by taking businesses through five key due diligence phases.
• SME Compass, Downloads: Practical guides and checklists are available for download on the SME compass website to embed due diligence processes, improve supply chain management and make mechanisms more effective.
• ILO Helpdesk for Business, Country Information Hub: This resource can be used to inform human rights due diligence, providing specific country information on different labour rights.