"How does a company ensure decent working conditions and equal treatment for migrant workers within its own operations or those of its business partners and suppliers when operating in a jurisdiction where migrant workers form a significant part of the workforce and where the government does not provide them with adequate protection?"

Although migrant workers are vulnerable to exploitation in many situations, responsible companies are most likely to come across this dilemma via business partners or suppliers. While a company will often place emphasis on transparency, quality and responsibility in its own recruitment and treatment of migrants, it will generally have less control over the employment practices of its business partners and suppliers. Therefore, the risk of complicity in the exploitation or unequal treatment of migrant workers is heightened for a company with extensive supply chains over which it has limited oversight or influence (e.g. second and third tier suppliers and sub-contractors).

The already tenuous circumstances permeating migrant workers' existence are often amplified by the fact that current regulation in emerging economies, from which many multi-national corporations (MNCs) source supplies, largely fails to adequately protect them. This is reflected in the fact that only 48 countries have ratified the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of their Families. Likewise, labour legislation and workplace cultures in some countries, particularly in the Gulf, explicitly provide for preferential treatment and higher payment for local workers than for migrants.

The dilemma for business, therefore, is how to ensure decent working conditions and equal treatment for migrant workers within its own operations or those of its business partners and suppliers, given the complex legal and cultural contexts in which such abuses may occur. The dilemma is further complicated by sometimes convoluted recruitment structures and practices, as well as the motivations and drivers (including the business case for employing migrants) behind migration itself.

Given such considerations, a company may face challenges in prioritising and implementing risk mitigation strategies that are affordable, practical and can be rolled out along a supply chain.

See Migrant Worker case studies

Back to top

As one of the primary drivers behind the global labour demand, procurement and distribution, most MNCs will encounter migrant workers either within their operations, or more likely through their supply chains. This is particularly the case when:

• Operating in or sourcing from key migrant destination countries (e.g. many Gulf states)
• It operates in a key sector in which migrants are commonly employed (e.g. construction, manufacturing, agriculture, hotels and restaurants, health care etc.)
• Business needs demand the frequent employment of seasonal or temporary labourers, many of whom are migrants (e.g. agricultural and food and beverage companies)
• Companies in the supply chain use temporary labour migration programmes that often bind the employee to their employer (see ‘sponsorship schemes' below for moreanalysis)

MNCs are most likely to face this dilemma when sourcing from countries where:

• Domestic labour laws contain no explicit protection for migrant workers
• Domestic labour laws with explicit protection for migrant workers are poorly enforced
• Social norms and customs dictate that the exploitation of migrant workers is tacitly accepted
• Companies have limited monitoring ability over extensive and complex supply chains
• Third-party recruiters are used without the imposition of adequate monitoring and accountability mechanisms

Key forms of exploitation

The legal and cultural contexts in many emerging economies mean migrant workers will often face challenging working conditions, as well as a lack of formal protection. This, as well as the fact that migrant workers will often be in circumstances that make them more willing to accept poor working conditions, makes them vulnerable to exploitation.

Exploitation can include:

• The withholding of passports or other official documents (e.g. see MRS Fashions example above, where passports were allegedly held to compel workers to pay their own employment-permit fees)
• The charging of significant "placement fees" by recruitment agencies and brokers
• The non-payment of wages and overtime (e.g. see the Russia example above, where HRW reports that migrant workers in the construction sector are often not paid the salaries initially promised and are forced to work excessively long hours)
• Low wages (migrant workers often find themselves in circumstances where they are more willing to accept lower wages and poor working conditions in order to preserve their jobs)
• Illegal or unfair deductions or withholding of wages (e.g. compulsory deductions for food or accommodation - where workers were subject to excessive monthly wage deductions)
• Inadequate living conditions, including overcrowded, inappropriate or unsanitary company-provided accommodation
• Long working hours and inadequate rest periods (e.g. an October 2014 report by Human Rights Watch, ‘I Already Bought You,' found that domestic workers in the United Arab Emirates often work up to 21 hours per day, many with no rest day). Sub-standard occupational safety and health (e.g. migrants may be more likely to accept such conditions due their circumstances)
• Contract substitution (where a contract signed in the country of origin is substituted with another upon arrival that has worse conditions, for example in terms of pay, holidays, etc.)
• Trafficking and forced labour (e.g. Ford's 2012/2013 Sustainability report notes that the company is actively engaging with stakeholders and direct suppliers to address the risk of human rights abuses, including forced labour and human trafficking, deep in the supply chain.

Exploitation is not limited to, but often occurs among the unskilled migrant workforce. Unskilled migrants are concentrated in lesser-paid and/or temporary or seasonal employment.

Lack of protection

The types of protection that migrants commonly lack include:

• Equal protection compared to other workers under national law
• Specific protections under national law, especially in export processing zones and free trade zones
• Access to remedy (e.g. due to financial costs, language barriers, a lack of understanding and awareness of national laws and legal systems and fear of retribution and repatriation etc.)
• The right to join or form a trade union or to access civil society support groups (e.g. foreign workers in Jordan are barred from trade union membership, collective bargaining and striking)
• Access to benefits such as social security, education, healthcare and maternity protection
• Adequate pre-departure or skills training in their country of origin
• Orientation training in destination countries (e.g. in its 2014 Employment Standards and Implementation Guidance for Taiwan-based suppliers, Patagonia requires suppliers to provide a pre-departure briefing and post-arrival orientation for all migrant workers.

Sponsorship schemes

The risk of exploitation may increase in countries such as Kuwait, Qatar and South Korea, where visas are tied to specific employers through temporary labour migration and sponsorship schemes.

In 2014, Amnesty International reported that some migrant workers in Korea had their contracts unfairly terminated when they complained about working conditions. Indeed, the Korean Employment Permit System discourages migrants from lodging complaints and changing jobs. As a result, auditing and other monitoring measures may not uncover the unequal treatment or exploitation of migrant workers in a company's supply chain and prevent companies from taking remedial action.

Recruitment practices

Suppliers or business partners may outsource the recruitment and management of migrant workers to third party recruiters or brokers. The consequences of outsourcing recruitment include:

• Breaking the system of direct accountability between the employer and their employees. This dynamic can lead to employers denying or altering the terms of employment offered to the worker by the recruiter, for example
• Recruiters concentrating on the volume of placements (and therefore increased revenue) instead of ethical practice

In a 2013 report, ‘Corruption and Labour Trafficking in Global Supply Chains,' Verité found that there are regular and numerous examples of corruption by Nepali government officials working in the Department of Foreign Employment. In order to take up employment abroad, a worker seeking to migrate from Nepal must present a demand letter from their receiving country employer, along with a copy of their contract and evidence of life insurance to the Department. Once these documents are verified, the worker receives a stamp in their passport that allows them to migrate. However, Verité reports that the Department has become a breeding ground for corruption due to over-centralisation and inefficiency. Often, migrants are forced to pay bribes at each step in the process of obtaining the migration stamp. As a result, many migrant workers are forced into unofficial channels such as unregulated ‘agents,' significantly increasing their vulnerability to forced labour.

In a December 2009 report, Integrity in Foreign Employment: An analysis of corruption risks in recruitment, for example, Transparency International (TI) noted that there are regular and numerous allegations of deception and other unethical exploitative practices employed by Sri Lankan employment agents. Furthermore, there are large numbers of illegal recruiters (including sub-agents and unlicensed agencies) who provide forged documentation and other illegal services, adding to the complexity of the recruitment process in Sri Lanka. TI reports that migrants have to pay illegal fees to recruiters and that all intermediaries in the migration process "presented corruption risks to job seekers."

Unscrupulous conduct by recruitment agencies and other employment intermediaries is common in many migrant exporting countries. Outsourcing the recruitment of migrants to brokers and recruitment agencies can result in enhanced risks to migrants, including excessive recruitment fees, contract substitution on arrival, and passport confiscation. Without robust recruitment standards and requirements being placed on suppliers, a company risks complicity in the exploitation or unequal treatment that can result from indirect recruitment practices.

For example, in March 2014, a Hawaii judge found California-based labour contract, Global Horizons, liable for discrimination against and abuse of hundreds of Thai workers. The company was found guilty of exploiting and physically assaulting the migrant workers on six farms across Hawaii, one of which was owned by Del Monte. Although a federal judge had previously dismissed human trafficking charges against the president of Global Horizons, the 2014 ruling vindicates the rights of the Thai workers who are currently in the process of finalising settlements with the six farms in question.

In 2014, the ILO launched a global "Fair Recruitment Initiative" with three objectives: to prevent human trafficking and forced labour; to protect the rights of workers, including migrant workers, from abusive and fraudulent practices during the recruitment and placement process; and, to reduce the cost of labour migration and enhance development outcomes for migrant workers and their families, as well as for countries of origin and destination. Keeping social dialogue at the centre of all the Initiative's activities, the ILO has set targets to be achieved between 2015-2018 with regard to enhancing knowledge on recruitment practices, improving laws, policies and enforcement for fair recruitment, promoting fair business practice and empowering and protecting workers. The ILO's initiative aims to mitigate some of the key factors that exacerbate the vulnerability, particularly of migrant workers, to conditions of forced labour and trafficking.

In March 2009, for example, operators of a labour leasing company in the US, Giant Labor Solutions, were indicted in Kansas on charges of racketeering and trafficking. The charges related to the company's alleged practice of threatening migrant workers with serious harm and of cancellation of their visas unless they performed the work assigned to them. Furthermore, it was claimed the company did not pay regular salaries, charged for a wide range of unreasonable or unexplained fees and levied exorbitant rents for sub-standard accommodation in which workers were required to reside. This combination of infringements of workers' rights allegedly resulted in a situation of debt bondage. Giant Labour Solutions reportedly had labour contracts with clients in the hotel, casino and construction industries in 14 US states (also see the Apple case study in which migrant workers had paid over US$6.7 million in recruitment fee overcharges since 2008).

See Migrant Worker case studies

Back to top

Real-world examples

Apple suppliers reimburse nearly US$17 million in recruitment fees

Recognising that the complex network of third party recruitment often results in workers being forced to pay extortionate fees, Apple enforces standards aimed at protecting vulnerable migrant workers. Under the company's Supplier Code of Conduct, charging fees higher than the equivalent of one month's net wages is strictly forbidden. In an effort to tackle bonded labour and worker indebtedness, Apple requires suppliers to reimburse excessive recruitment fees for any eligible worker found working on Apple projects. Since 2008, suppliers have reimbursed a total of US$16.9 million. The policy is enforced through regular bonded labour audits, which help suppliers modify management systems and practices to comply with Apple standards.

These standards were introduced following the discovery in 2008 of migrant workers at six supplier factories who had paid recruitment fees totalling US$852,000. The company moved to update its Supplier Code of Conduct to include a standard for the Prevention of Involuntary Labour. This outlines standards for excessive fees, contract management, grievance processes, workers' passports and agency management.

MRS Fashions factory workers in Bahrain deported for striking over passport retention

In June 2014, 12 Bangladeshi workers were deported from Bahrain for taking part in a strike seeking justice for ongoing violations of labour standards at the MRS Fashions factory. These include the confiscation of workers' passports by MRS Fashions, a practice that is illegal under both Bahraini Labour Law and the United States-Bahrain Free Trade Agreement.

The formation of independent trade unions and the right to strike are severely restricted in Bahrain, leaving many migrant workers vulnerable to arrest and deportation in cases of worker mobilisation.

Human Rights Watch reports on sub-standard working conditions for migrant labourers in the Russian construction industry

In a February 2013 report, Human Rights Watch (HRW) noted that migrant workers involved in the construction of Russian facilities for the Winter Olympic and Paralympic Games in 2014 are often subject to sub-standard working conditions. Furthermore, migrant workers are often not paid the salaries initially promised, are forced to work excessively long hours and have their passports and work permits confiscated. They are often not protected by the authorities and HRW records instances of employers reporting foreign workers to the authorities in retaliation for complaints. This has result in the expulsion of these workers from Russia. Businesses implicated in the report include Swiss firm Botta Management Group that is project managing the construction of the Central Olympic Stadium, Russian construction company Engeocom Association and Austrian construction company STABAG SE, the general contractor for the Main Olympic Village.

Russia has one of the largest migrant populations in the world, with approximately four to nine million migrant workers. Around 80% of migrants originate from the nine countries of the former Soviet Union with which Russia maintains a visa-free regime. Approximately 40% of migrant workers are employed in the highly unregulated construction sector.

See Migrant Worker case studies

Back to top

The failure to address exploitation of migrant workers could result in the following risks:

Legal action

Legal action may be brought against a company by migrant workers and/or activists working on their behalf. Typically, it may relate to the exploitation of migrants, notably in relation to their working conditions. Adjudication has the potential to result in substantial legal costs and damages, the use of valuable management time, reputational damage and the potential for civil and criminal sanctions.

For example, in 2015, three lawsuits were brought against a Kentucky tobacco farm which is alleged to have abused migrant workers from Mexico under a federal program authorising the hiring of migrant labour. The workers claim they were threatened with jail or deportation if they complained about their substandard working and living conditions and that their employer confiscated their passports.

Similarly, 35 migrant farm workers lodged a class-action lawsuit against Golden Eagle Farms in Washington State for the non-payment of wages for work carried out in 2014. The complaint alleges that the workers were employed through an unlicensed, unbonded labour contractor, Father Like Son Farm Labour Supply, that did not have a labour contractor licence or a surety bond to act as a labour agent. Legal representatives for the workers claim that Golden Eagle Farms is liable for the wages owed because it failed to check the credentials of the contractor before the workers were hired.

In August 2015, three California law firms filed for an injunction to stop US retail chain Costco from selling prawns unless they are labelled as the produce of slavery. Forced labour and human trafficking is alleged to be widespread in the Thai fishing industry, which supplies prawns to leading supermarkets around the world including Carrefour, Costco, Walmart and Tesco. Migrants who have managed to escape from fishing boats tell of abusive working conditions including 20 hour shifts, beatings and execution-style killings.

Reputational damage

Reputational and brand damage may arise as a result of sustained or high-impact negative publicity and activism, including by NGOs, trade unions and journalists see the MRS Fashions example above).Often, activism will focus on exploitative working conditions in a company's supply chain.

In June 2009, for example, the Guardian newspaper reported in an article, Union takes migrant worker fight to Tesco AGM, that UK trade union Unite accused UK supermarket chain Tesco at its Annual General Meeting of damaging race relations and social cohesion by allowing the exploitation of foreign agency workers in its UK meat and poultry supply chains. According to the Financial Times, in February 2008 Unite had also organised an internet campaign, as well as demonstrations, which alleged there was "widespread discrimination" against migrant working in UK-retailer Marks & Spencer's meat suppliers.

In response to the August 2015 ‘Fancy Feast' lawsuit filed against the company for the alleged use of slave labor in its supply chain, Nestle has released an action plan on the responsible sourcing of seafood. This includes entails establishing a system to improve the traceability of seafood; a training program on fair recruitment practices for fishing boat-owners; an audit programme to verify working conditions on vessels; and the establishment of both a grievance mechanism for fishers and a Migrant Workforce Emergency Response Team. This team will be responsible for the protection and remediation of Thai fishers subject to abusive working conditions.

Poor worker/management relationships

Exploitative working conditions and the unequal treatment of migrant workers may result in poor worker/management relationships as a result of demoralisation, anger and a feeling that the worker is being treated unfairly.

This can manifest through disaffection in the workplace, but also through potentially protracted labour disputes. Animosity in the workplace can result in supply chain disruption if it escalates to the level of a strike. Less dramatically, poor workplace relations and high levels of dissatisfaction may also affect general productivity.

In this context, reported strikes and labour protests increased in China between 2010 and April 2015, affecting most industries, especially low-end manufacturing. As the most populous nation in the world, China has the highest levels of internal migration, with many people relocating from rural to urban areas for low-skilled factory work. The most common catalysts of labour unrest include wage arrears, low pay, factory closures and, increasingly, a lack of permanent employment status.

Notably, a lack of social security benefits was the catalyst for large-scale, highly publicised industrial action taken by shoe factory employees in Guangdong province in April 2014. Strike rates across China are likely to continue to rise in 2015 in line with the significant increase in awareness surrounding workers' rights that has taken place over the last five years. While the Hong Kong-based China Labour Bulletin recorded only 185 strikes and labour protests in 2011, the number spiked to more than 1,300 in 2014.

Risk to suppliers

The high-volume, ‘just-in-time' purchasing patterns commonly used by MNCs may result in suppliers opting to ‘cut corners,' and remove some safeguards within the workplace. There may be a perception by the supplier, for example, that it is cheaper to pay workers less and extend working hours as opposed to hiring additional workers and cutting into its profit margin.

Nonetheless, where suppliers engage in exploitative practices, including in relation to the recruitment and employment of migrant workers, they may face additional risks to those outlined above. In the worst case scenario, for example, suppliers risk losing the business of major MNCs upon the discovery of exploitation, poor working conditions and the unequal treatment of migrant workers. In other cases, they may face costly remedial action.

For example, following investigations into human rights infringements committed against 1,200 migrant workers at Hytex (a Nike supplier in Malaysia) Nike required the manufacturers to:

• Reimburse migrant workers for fees associated with employment (e.g. recruitment and work permit fees)
• Pay all future fees associated with employment as a cost of doing business
• Provide return airfares for workers wishing to return home, irrespective of contract requirements
• Move workers into new Nike-inspected and approved housing
• Provide workers with immediate and unrestricted access to their passports
• Provide workers with access to a 24-hour Nike hotline to report abuses in the workplace

See Migrant Worker case studies

Back to top

In order to promote decent working conditions and equal treatment for migrant workers, companies should comply with national laws regulating labour. Where national laws are set lower than international standards, MNCs should strive to meet these higher standards. The process of amending policies and implementing augmented safeguards for migrant workers could be achieved by carrying out human rights due diligence focusing on the regulation of recruitment, working conditions and the housing situation of migrant workers. Where appropriate, a company can also conduct regular social audits and provide company-level grievance mechanisms that are accessible to migrant workers.

The UN ‘Protect, Respect and Remedy' Framework for Business and Human Rights provides guidance on how to protect individuals and communities from corporate related human rights harm.

The framework is comprised of three key principles:

• Protect: The state duty to protect against human rights abuses by third parties, including business;
• Respect: The corporate responsibility to respect human rights; and
• Remedy: Greater access by victims to effective remedy, both judicial and non-judicial.

The framework states that in addition to complying with national laws businesses have a responsibility, in the context of the countries where they operate, to respect human rights through their own business activities and through their relationships with third parties – such as business partners and entities in their supply chains. To meet this responsibility, the framework notes that businesses should engage in human rights due diligence and specifies the main components of the process:

Policies: Including a human rights policy containing broad commitments, supported by more detailed guidance in specific functional areas

Impact assessment: Including assessments that explicitly reference internationally recognised human rights and are used by companies to avoid potential negative human rights impacts on an ongoing basis

Integration: Including the embedding of respect for human rights throughout a company

Tracking performance: Including regular updates of human rights impact and performance

The Guiding Principles for the Implementation of the UN "Protect, Respect and Remedy" Framework aim to provide "concrete and practical recommendations" about how businesses can operationalise their responsibility to respect human rights. According to the Guiding Principles, the responsibility to respect human rights requires responsible companies to:

• Implement a human rights policy
• Apply human rights due diligence
• Provide for remediation

The UNGPs apply to all States and to all business enterprises, both transnational and others, regardless of their size, sector, location, ownership and structure.

The UNGPs have experienced widespread uptake and support from both the public and private sectors, and numerous companies have publicly stated their commitment to the Guiding Principles. The UN Guiding Principles Reporting Framework is also used by companies to report on how they respect human rights.

Companies can seek specific guidance on this and other issues relating to international labour standards from the ILO Helpdesk. This aims to help company managers and workers understand the ILO approach to socially responsible labour practices and to assist in the development of good industrial relations.

Specific actions for responsible business might include:

1. Issue company policies and procedures

Socially responsible companies will often have developed and implemented human rights policies and procedures that support ethically sound decision-making. Along these lines, a company may consider adapting codes of conduct to ensure that they promulgate equal employment and non-exploitation practices with regards to migrant workers. The company may consider issuing a stand-alone policy or amending an existing human rights policy where it relates to migrant workers.

A company may consider making the following commitments:

• Comply with national law relating to migrant workers at 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 that amount to discriminatory treatment, including the withholding of passports and other travel documents
• Adopt a zero-tolerance approach to unequal treatment and exploitation, which could include an internal mechanism to promptly and comprehensively investigate any allegations of human rights infringements
• Enshrine clear guidelines with regards to recruitment practices (including those of suppliers and business partners where possible) that contain specific recommendations on recruitment fees and contracts
• Ensure that any company-provided accommodation for migrants and other workers is ‘adequate' as defined by international standards
• Inaugurate monitoring and auditing mechanisms to oversee implementation of company policy
• Regularly review the policy and view it as a ‘living document' given the complexities and evolving nature of labour migration

As part of its Standards for Contractors and Suppliers, for example, Jones Apparel Group states that contractors and suppliers using migrant labour must ensure that:

• Migrant workers are treated fairly and on an equal basis with the local workforce
• All original travel and identification documents remain with the workers
• Migrant workers have secure individual storage to safely maintain travel and identification documents during the time of their employment

2. Provide staff training

Where due diligence actions have highlighted increased risk of exploitation, a company may consider providing training to staff, suppliers and business partners on the recruitment and treatment of migrant workers. This should be focused on the personnel most likely to come into contact with migrant workers such as:

• Procurement personnel
• Supply chain managers
• Construction project managers

Training might include reference to the relevant international standards, including the International Labour Standards and the Convention on the Rights of All Migrant Workers, and could be updated in-line with new innovations and adjustments to best practice.

Companies might also consider adapting existing worker training programmes to accommodate migrants 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.

3. Conduct audits

When operating in sectors or regions in which migrant workers are common, a company should consider improving oversight of its own operations and those of its suppliers to ensure compliance with national law and international standards that relate to the recruitment and treatment of migrant workers (whichever are more stringent).

This could include regular audits of major suppliers in countries where migrants' rights are less protected (as identified through due diligence initiatives) or where the employment of migrants is common. Additional independent third-party audits could be considered where feasible, particularly in situations in which internal audits have not proven fully sufficient.

Regular monitoring is important to ensure continuous improvement of working conditions within the supply chain. Companies may seek to conform to internationally recognised standards such as SA8000, with auditors paying special attention to the treatment of migrant workers. Corrective action should be taken immediately if unequal treatment or exploitation of migrants is found.

Audits could include:

• Interviewing management on the understanding and implementation of company policies and procedures, including the recruitment and employment of migrant workers
• Inspecting workplace and accommodation for any signs of malpractice or poor living and working conditions
• Interviewing migrant workers to gain an understanding of the recruitment and employment practices used by the employer, in order to ascertain any breaches in standards (including whether the worker is aware of the rights, protections and grievance mechanisms that are available)
• Inspect contracts, visas and other documents in order to identify excessive and/or unfair recruitment fees, the withholding of official documents or other anomalies

For example, the ‘Information and Communications Technology (ICT) Supplier Self-Assessment Questionnaire,' produced by the Global e-Sustainability Initiative Supply Chain Working Group and the Electronic Industry Code of Conduct as a joint initiative, includes the following questions:

• Does your facility use foreign or migrant workers?
• Does facility use workforce recruiters to provide foreign or migrant workers? If so, who pays the fees?
• Who is responsible for the safekeeping of travel documents for foreign workers at your facility?
• Are any of your workers within the supply chain required to deposit money or identity papers prior to taking up employment?

4. Consider amending recruitment practices

If feasible, a company should recruit migrant workers directly rather than through the use of brokers. A company may also choose to publish and communicate guidance on its expectations with regards to the recruitment and employment of migrant workers, including by business partners and suppliers.

Given that the risk of exploitation is likely to be higher within the supply chain, a company may wish to incentivise suppliers to improve their recruitment practices. This can be done, for example, by providing preferential terms to suppliers who recruit directly. A company may also work with suppliers to set fees and contracts with employment agencies and to encourage suppliers to work with recruiters to verify that the candidates' skills conform to the job description in question. It may be necessary to fund these programmes – in full or in part – in order to encourage initial up-take.

5. Ensure that migrant workers are free to leave at any time

Migrants should be able to leave their employment freely at any time, in accordance with the provisions in their employment contract. Companies should not retain any important document or other items (e.g. passport, driving licence, identity papers or sums of money) belonging to the workers that may have the result of impeding their right to free movement.

It might be advisable to inform suppliers and business partners of these standards and consider enforcing them through independent audits where feasible and affordable. Confidential whistle-blowing mechanisms may also be another mode of enforcing these guarantees.

6. Provide grievance and remedial mechanisms

Migrant workers should be able to voice concerns and grievances without punishment. A company could develop confidential and transparent grievance mechanisms, such as whistle-blowing hotlines and other complaints mechanisms, particularly in countries where migrants may be denied access to other remedies (for instance, due to fears of losing their visa status).

Such mechanisms should be multi-lingual (where necessary and appropriate) and available to all workers. In the event that labour standard breeches are verified, protocols should be in place to provide just compensation.

Migrant workers often lack access to remedy due to cultural constraints, as well as a lack of legal knowledge and language barriers. As a result, a company may consider trying to address any cultural impediments that could prevent migrant workers from raising concerns.

A company might also encourage suppliers to implement similar procedures within their own operations. Where suppliers are based in countries in which migrants are regulated by a sponsorship scheme, the company could consider offering access to confidential whistle-blowing hotlines to suppliers' employees. This gesture would enable migrant workers to voice concerns and grievances without fear of retribution, including any action that could place their visa status at risk.

7. Engage stakeholders to enhance migrant worker protections

On a case-by-case basis (and where appropriate) companies could work with host governments, recruitment agencies, migrant workers and other actors to improve laws, processes and practices designed to enhance protection for migrants. Options might include working with peers to develop a unified position for engagement or participation in sector-wide initiatives to develop best-practice guidance.

8. Provide adequate housing to migrants where required

Where necessary and appropriate, a company might provide accommodation to migrants or help them find adequate accommodation provided by third parties.

Where a company provides migrant workers with accommodation, they need to ensure it fulfils certain basic criteria including security of tenure, availability of utilities and other services (e.g. sewage facilities and access to safe drinking water) and meets standards of affordability, habitability, accessibility and cultural adequacy.

Where necessary, a company might consider conducting regular site visits to ensure that all workers have access to adequate housing and accommodation. Assessments could be conducted to verify that the accommodation conforms with the basic criteria set out above. The Guidance on Workers' Accommodation, developed by the International Finance Corporation and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, as well as ILO Recommendation on Workers' Housing (No. 115), provide good examples of the types of requirements that a company might consider if providing accommodation to migrant workers.

9. Provide information to migrant workers about trade unions

In most countries, migrant workers are entitled to the same rights to form trade unions as domestic workers. However, language and cultural constraints (including the status of unions in the country of origin) can mean that migrant workers are not aware of their rights to freedom of association and collective bargaining. Where this is the case, a socially responsible company might consider providing relevant guidance and instruction.

This could include, for example, providing materials on how to join a union in different languages. Where trade union membership is outlawed, a company could suggest, create or provide information on other forms of worker representation.

See Migrant Worker case studies

Back to top

Definition of a migrant

A migrant is a person who moves from one place to another to live (and usually work), either temporarily or permanently. Migrants may move within their country of origin or abroad. The International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of their Families defines a migrant worker as "a person who is to be engaged, is engaged or has been engaged in a remunerated activity in a State of which he or she is not a national."

Regular migrants enter a country to stay and participate in a remunerated activity pursuant to the law of that country and to the international agreements to which that country is a party.

Irregular migrants enter a country and work in violation of the law, owing to undocumented entry or visa expiration. Due to their lack of legal status, they often work in the informal economy and might not benefit from labour legislation and social protection.

International standards

All migrant workers, regardless of their status, are entitled to protection under the eight fundamental ILO Conventions and the relevant UN human rights instruments.

The ILO has two international labour conventions specific to migrants, the Migration for Employment Convention No. 97, (1949) and the Migrant Workers (Supplementary Provisions) Convention No. 143, (1975). Both of these conventions comprehensively define the rights of migrant workers and advocate the principles of equal treatment, equality of opportunity and non-discrimination. The ILO has also adopted the non-binding Multilateral Framework on Labour Migration, which brings together aspects of protection of migrant workers with those relating to the contribution of labour migration to development.

These instruments call for equality of treatment and opportunity between migrants and nationals in the following areas:

• Employment
• Remuneration
• Social security
• Trade union rights
• Cultural rights and individual freedoms
• Accommodation
• Employment taxes
• Access to legal proceedings

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 migrants, including the migrant's family and the situation of women and children. The ICRMW articulates the principle of equality of treatment between migrant workers and nationals with respect to remuneration and other working conditions, calling for equality of treatment with regards to migrant workers' access to urgent medical assistance and education for their children. In the ICRMW, equality and non-discrimination extends to irregular migrants.

Together with the ILO Conventions, this legislation defines a comprehensive charter of migrant rights and provides a basis for national policy and practice on migrant workers. It is worth noting that even though the treaty entered into force in 2003, it only has 48 parties, most of which are countries of origin rather than destination. To date, Canada, the US and much of the EU have not signed the ICRMW.

Dynamics behind labour migration

Key drivers behind labour migration include:

• Shortage of adequate employment to support workers and their families in their own countries
• Socio-economic and political crises in migrant source countries
• A dearth of specialist skill-sets and/or cheap labour in migrant destination countries (often driven by strong growth, ‘shortages' of domestic labour or rigid societal norms)
• Widening wage gaps within, as well as between, developed and developing countries
• Demographic changes, with countries with declining and aging populations more likely to encourage migration

Migrant workers are often valued for numerous attributes, including:

• Filling local labour shortages
• A willingness to accept comparatively lower wages
• Limited tax and social security payments on the part of the employer
• A reduced likelihood of absenteeism and low turnover

Key sectors and regions where migrants are commonly found

A migrant's gender, as well as their skills, often determine their employment and labour migration outcomes. According to the Global Migration Group, male migrants are commonly employed in construction and manufacturing, while women are concentrated in health, education, and domestic services. However, female migrant workers also form a significant proportion of those employed in manufacturing and are almost equally represented in hotels and restaurants in OECD countries.

Migrant workers in industrialised countries primarily work in industry and construction (40%), and service sectors (50%). In the Middle East, many migrant workers are engaged in domestic work and construction, while in Southeast Asia, around 32% of migrants are engaged in manufacturing and the remainder in services, construction and agricultural sectors.

International migration

Migration for employment affects most countries around the world. The International Labour Organisation estimates that there are 232 international migrant workers. This figure represents around 3% of the global workforce. In addition, there are between 20 and 30 million irregular migrants.

In the southern hemisphere, workers from poor sections of society often migrate between low income countries. Similarly, middle-income countries tend to attract migrants from nearby low-income countries. This is often down to travel costs (migration costs to developing countries are lower and more widely affordable), poor controls and cultural similarities. A case of the latter is the substantial labour flows between the porous borders separating Bangladesh, India and Nepal - countries with cultural and historical similarities.

Figure one: International migrants by destination region – 2013 (last available data)

Region	International migrants living in the region (million)	Migrants as a percentage of the total population (%)	Overview
Africa	18.64	1.7	International migration to Africa has been steadily increasing in recent years (e.g. an increase of 1.5 million between 2010 and 2013). The majority of international migrants in Africa originate from within the region. 28% of migrants to Africa are destined for Eastern Africa and a further 36% migrate to Western Africa. North African countries such as Libya and Tunisia are increasingly used as ‘transit' points for irregular migrants attempting to enter Europe.
Northern America	53.09	14.9	The US and Canada continue to be major receivers of permanent migrants globally, with growing demand for temporary workers in the food and service industries. With 45.8 million migrants (14.3% of the total population), the US is the primary destination country for migrants globally (e.g. 99% of Mexican migrants are in the US).
Latin America and the Caribbean	8.55	1.4	The migrant population in Latin America and the Caribbean has been relatively stable in recent years (increasing by 450,000 between 2010 and 2013). Argentina is the top destination country in Latin America and the Caribbean (1.9 million migrants), followed by Venezuela (1.2 million) and Mexico (1.1 million).
Asia	70.85	1.6	Asia is characterised by very large intra-regional flows of migrant workers. Countries like Malaysia, Singapore and Thailand are increasingly attracting highly skilled workers from more developed countries/areas within and outside the region. Asia is the largest source of temporary contractual migrant workers and also contains three of the top five origin countries for migrant workers: India (diaspora of 14.2 million), China (diaspora of 9.3 million), and Bangladesh (diaspora of 7.8 million).
Europe	72.45	9.8	Europe's regional dynamics differ from other regions due to the EU objective of creating a common migratory space. Many migrants, therefore, originate from within the region (e.g. from Eastern to Western Europe). Russia (11.0 million) and Germany (9.8 million) rank 2nd and 3rd globally as destinations for migrant workers.
Middle East	33.14	13.5	Migration to the Middle East is increasing (1.87 million between 2010 and 2013). Middle Eastern countries have the highest concentration of migrant workers as a percentage of the overall population. For example, 73.8% in Qatar, 83.7% in UAE, 60.2% in Kuwait, 54.6% in Bahrain, 31.4% in Saudi Arabia and 30.6% in Oman. An estimated 8.7 million Asian migrants in the Middle East are on temporary contracts.
Oceania	7.94	20.7	Predominant destinations are Australia and New Zealand. Migration accounts for one-quarter of population growth in Australia, New Zealand and Pacific Ocean island countries. Skilled migration is growing significantly, including of women into managerial and other professional positions, although temporary migration accounts for a large proportion of this.

Internal migration

Often more affordable and requiring less cultural and linguistic adaptation, the scale of internal migration is greater than that of international migration. Due to remoteness and the cost of travel, the poorest migrants tend to migrate within national borders – as exemplified in China where up to 230 million migrate internally. Drivers behind internal migration vary, and may include seasonal (agriculture) migration and varying degrees of economic growth within countries (e.g. India). Internal migration is thought to include a greater number of income groups than international migration.

Human rights impact

Other human rights that are typically associated with infringements of the rights of migrant workers include:

Right to an effective remedy for acts violating fundamental rights (ICCPR, Article 3): A lack of suitable work-based grievance mechanisms may hinder migrant workers from accessing remedies for human and labour rights abuses. This is particularly the case where the legal framework and culture in a country prevent migrants from seeking adequate access to remedy.

Right to freedom of movement (ICCPR, Article 12): The freedom of movement of migrant workers can be severely restricted through, for example, the confiscation of passports or other travel documents.

Right to equality before the law, equal protection of the law, and rights of non-discrimination (ICCPR, Article 26): Migrant workers can be subject to unequal treatment when compared to nationals. This is likely to occur in recruitment processes, as well as in terms of the legal protections that they are afforded in the workplace.

Rights of minorities (ICCPR, Article 27): Migrants have the right to enjoy their own culture, practice their own religion, and to speak their own language without discrimination. Due to their status, migrant workers may be denied this right as a matter of official policy or through societal discrimination.

Right to an adequate standard of living (including access to adequate food, clothing, housing and water) (ICESCR, Article 11): Companies that provide housing to migrant workers can directly infringe on this right if the housing is not of an adequate standard.

Right to equal remuneration and conditions of work for migrant workers (ICPRM, Article 25): Many migrants experience lower pay and poorer working conditions than their domestic counterparts. This can be due to discrimination, prevailing legal frameworks, the legal status of migrant workers and market dynamics.

Right of migrants to form associations and trade unions (ICPRM, Article 40): In many situations, migrants may – due to their legal status, the legal frameworks in which they operate in or their relatively weak negotiating position – be denied the right to freedom of association.

See Migrant Worker case studies

Back to top