Corporate Accountability Lab Blog
Legal Design Lab
On November 22, 2023, the United Kingdom’s (UK) High Court found that 13,000 Nigerian fisherman and farmers from the Ogale and Bille communities in the Niger Delta can bring landmark human rights claims against Shell for breaches of the communities’ right to a clean environment. Shell, a British-Dutch company, first began extracting oil from the biodiverse Niger Delta in the late 1950s under a joint venture it established with the Nigerian government just four years before Nigeria gained independence from Great Britain.
In October 2023, a landmark war crimes trial began in Sweden: the first prosecution in Swedish history of corporate executives for aiding and abetting war crimes. The trial opened to intense public interest – likely to intensify as it unfolds over the next two years. And for good reason. In many ways, this trial is legally unusual. The two corporate executives, Chairman Ian Lundin and former CEO Alex Schneiter, worked for the Swedish oil giant, Lundin Energy – previously known as Lundin Petroleum and Lundin Oil.
Açaí-harvesting communities in the Brazilian Amazon are demanding that companies like Sambazon address head-on the major risks associated with sourcing açaí, and that they restructure sourcing practices to maximize benefits to communities – not pretend that human rights risks are not present. Sambazon should put its money where its mouth is and make sustainability a reality in its supply chain – or, at least, ditch the misleading marketing. When businesses sell products that are likely made with hazardous child labor, they should not be able to paint a rose-colored image of sustainability to consumers.
On June 20, the Washington D.C. Superior Court dismissed Corporate Accountability Lab’s (CAL) consumer protection suit against The Rainforest Alliance, Inc. (Rainforest Alliance), an eco-social certifier, for lack of personal jurisdiction. In the same order, the judge refused to grant The Hershey Company’s (Hershey) motion to dismiss the case against them as co-defendants. This post discusses the mixed decision and the significance of the dismissal of claims against Rainforest Alliance.
Thirty years ago, the Ogoni people of the Niger Delta in Nigeria drove the multinational oil company Royal Dutch Shell (Shell) out of their territory. This nonviolent movement, led by the Movement for the Survival of the Ogoni People (MOSOP), was extraordinarily powerful. Yet, as CAL staff members saw on a visit to Ogoni in early March 2023, the struggle is far from over. The harm the oil industry wrought on this community in the 1990s runs the gamut from environmental devastation, to political oppression, to rape and murder. The dilapidated oil infrastructure in Ogoni appears to still be leaking oil into the environment, children and adults still suffer health impacts, and the fish (traditionally a major source of protein for the Ogoni population) remain scarce. But the joy and spirit of resistance is also still alive.
For decades, Shell allowed oil to leak into the Niger Delta, destroying fields, making water undrinkable, and harming local populations. Over the years, there have been numerous cases filed against Shell, related to different aspects of Shell’s destruction of the Niger Delta and associated human rights abuses. (See here, here, and here.) In December 2022, Shell settled one of these cases – for 15 million Euros – after a Dutch appeals court ordered the company to compensate victims harmed by Shell’s subsidiary, Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria (SPDC). This blog post first describes the environmental and human rights abuses Shell has caused in the Niger Delta. It then explains Shell’s settlement and discusses the importance of this historic case and the settlement.
Last month, Glencore and Lafarge, two well-known multinationals, made international headlines after their guilty pleas for criminal conduct abroad led to multimillion dollar settlements and gave rise to civil claims. This post discusses the Glencore and Lafarge cases and their recent guilty pleas for bribery and for financing foreign terrorist organizations, respectively. These cases are discussed through the lens of the DOJ’s new strategy to prosecute corporate misconduct. This blog considers how these cases could be a starting point for corporate accountability and access to remedy, rather than as the gold standard.
Two years ago, US democracy was threatened when election-denying citizens and militias stormed the US Capitol, demanding that federal representatives overturn the results of a valid election. This insurrection, while ultimately unsuccessful, cost lives and called into stark question the future of American democratic institutions. In the wake of this deadly attack, companies across the United States, including many of the largest, pledged not to support members of Congress who fueled the insurrection and voted — in the early morning of January 7, 2021, mere hours after Capitol windows were smashed and Capitol police were beaten — to abandon the winner of an election that was unambiguously fair and free.
A year ago today, on the first anniversary of this anti-democratic attack, we wrote about the scores of Fortune 500 companies that funded election-denying members of Congress, even after making — and, no doubt, profiting from — public vows not to. At that time, we said that better politics and stronger democratic institutions depended on reimagining corporate power. Consider this our progress report.
Despite passage of the War Crimes Act (WCA) in 1996 and amendment in 1997, the United States criminal code does not—outside narrowly defined circumstances—allow the government to prosecute war criminals in federal courts. But widespread accusations of war crimes committed by Russian soldiers in Ukraine has spurred a bipartisan effort in Congress to breathe new life into this “dead letter” statute. If passed, the Justice for Victims of War Crimes Act of 2022—a recently introduced amendment to the WCA—would bring the United States more in-line with its duties under the Geneva Convention and more in-step with allies abroad…. The new bill would also create an important mechanism for holding corporations accountable for aiding and abetting war crimes. For this reason, CAL urges Congress to swiftly enact the proposed amendment.
In our first post of this three-part series, we outlined Papua’s violent colonial history, the ongoing Free West Papua movement, and the inextricable connection between this history, present-day struggles, and Freeport’s operations in the region. In this post, we’ll dive into the specific harm experienced by mine workers, surrounding Indigenous communities, and the unique Papuan ecosystem– and, we’ll describe Freeport’s alleged role in all of it. For over fifty years, Papuans have suffered for the sake of a foreign company’s profits. Freeport’s initial investment, made in the throes of colonialism, is a critical part of this story, and the company’s dominance over Papua’s economy and institutions continues today, making accountability very difficult to achieve.
The Fashioning Accountability and Building Real Institutional Change Act (FABRIC Act) has been described as world-leading and labeled a “landmark” bill, the “first-ever” of its kind, and transformative and groundbreaking. We’ve heard this type of rhetoric before about other federal and state legislative proposals purporting to revolutionize protections for supply chain workers — and we’ve been quick to counter that those bills, while disguised as human rights legislation, failed to deliver systemic change, did not provide for victim agency, and ultimately perpetuated the status quo of corporate impunity.
It is far too easy for multinational corporations to evade liability for human rights and environmental harms, especially when the companies – which are often based in the European Union (EU) or in the United States (US) – commit those harms in the Global South. We have seen this again and again, from Shell’s extensive pollution in the Niger Delta to the chocolate industries’ reliance on forced labor and hazardous child labor. To address this crisis of impunity, we must pass stronger legislation – legislation that makes companies accountable for their entire supply chains – across the Global North.
In this post, we examine the swift implementation and shift in the global order that took place since Russia’s invasion, just three weeks ago, on February 24, 2022. We look at how companies have responded and compare the widespread exit from the Russian economy with how companies respond to other human rights violations and humanitarian disasters.
The Grasberg Copper and Gold Mine, the largest in the world of its kind, is carved out of a mountaintop 14,000 feet above sea-level in the highlands of Papua, Indonesia. In fact, the open-pit mine is so large that the crater can be seen by astronauts in the International Space Station. It is estimated to contain $108 billion worth of minerals, but before the mountaintop was carved up for its wealth, it was the sacred mother of the Amungme indigenous community. They and many other indigenous communities have since been driven from their home by the American mining company and operator of the Grasberg mine, Freeport McMoRan.
Environmental litigation in national courts is increasingly pointing the way toward novel approaches that can be useful in challenging the status quo on behalf of people and the planet. In formulating strategy, activists should consider the factors driving the litigation outcomes, the characteristics of the emerging legal landscape, and the contours of appropriate government regulation and corporate compliance frameworks, taking into account these developments. Although in this blog we focus on lessons from lawsuits in Australia, Germany, the Netherlands, and the United States, lawsuits in the Global South are also instructive strategically.
In January 2022, the New York Assembly unveiled the Fashion Sustainability and Social Accountability Act (FSSAA), a law that purports to change the fashion industry and its role in perpetuating human rights and environmental harm. Such a law is certainly needed; the fashion industry is a massive polluter, accounting for between 2-8 percent of global emissions. The industry employs 75 million people, including workers in all parts of the supply chain and in countries throughout the world – many of whom are vulnerable and exploited.
But is this law really as powerful and “historic” as the New York Times claimed? No. After careful analysis, we believe that while we would rather see it pass than fail, there are some major flaws that weaken it. This law will not be a game-changer; at best, it will provide a little bit more transparency in supply chains, a positive but small step in the right direction. At worst, it will stop other pushes for legislation that would actually provide remedy to workers and incentivize changes in supply chains beyond disclosure.
One year ago today, on January 6, 2021, after thousands of deceived Americans violently overtook the U.S. Capitol and delayed a critical procedural step in the peaceful transition of power, waves of corporations issued statements condemning the violence and promising to “reevaluate” their political alliances by ending donations to leaders of the insurrection. Many of these public pledges were then broken in less than 3 months.
Last month, The Guardian revealed that Canadian pipeline company Enbridge has paid Minnesota police more than two and a half million dollars for services including the surveillance and arrest of Water Protectors resisting the company’s construction of a new Line 3 pipeline. This post situates the Enbridge-police agreement in Minnesota and violent crackdown against Water Protectors at Line 3 within a disturbing global context rooted in colonialism.
Beautiful cabinets and fancy doors made of timber from the Peruvian Amazon decorate the homes of people in 35 countries. This timber likely comes from illegal deforestation of the Amazon rainforest, which in turn impacts the environmental crisis. For nearly a decade, 130 forest authorities signed more than 1,000 forest management plans that included false information to circumvent the law and extract timber from prohibited forests, national parks, and indigenous community protected lands in Peru.
A small group of corporations play an outsized role in exploiting marine animals in international waters. Estimates suggest that only thirteen seafood corporations account for up to 40% of the largest and most valuable fish catches worldwide. So far, decades old management measures to regulate fishing in international waters have failed to stem fish population declines. Meanwhile, dangerous working conditions, forced labor, trafficking, and other human rights abuses are alarmingly common onboard fishing and cargo vessels.
Corporate Accountability Lab presentó un memorial de amicus curiae solicitando a la Corte Suprema de Estados Unidos que conceda el certiorari en el caso, Doe v. Chiquita Brands International. El caso fue presentado por los familiares de sindicalistas, trabajadores del sector bananero, organizadores políticos, activistas sociales y otras personas atacadas y asesinadas por las Autodefensas Unidas de Colombia (AUC), una organización paramilitar de derecha en Colombia financiada en parte por Chiquita, la empresa bananera multinacional con sede en Estados Unidos. Los demandantes han interpuesto una querella contra Chiquita, alegando que Chiquita fue cómplice de las AUC financiándolas.
Corporate Accountability Lab filed an amicus brief on behalf of a group of human rights organizations, asking the US Supreme Court to grant certiorari in the case Doe v. Chiquita. The case was brought by the family members of trade unionists, banana workers, political organizers, social activists, and others targeted and killed by the United Self-Defense Group of Colombia (AUC), a right-wing paramilitary organization in Colombia funded in part by Chiquita.
While 100 companies are responsible for nearly three-fourths of global emissions contributing to climate change, governments have historically lacked the tools--or political will-- to effectively mitigate corporate contributions to climate change, even those that fossil fuel companies make.
However, a new ruling by a Dutch court may force change for corporate accountability on climate change.
When we choose to purchase a product that bears a certification label-- like a yogurt with a fair trade stamp-- we may assume that the workers and environment along the supply chain were respected in the product’s development. But the social auditing and certification industry behind such certifications do not always have the impacts we might think. Fair Trade USA’s recently-launched Certified Dairy label is an example of how social auditing and certification programs that are not worker-driven all too often end up as greenwashing and/or fairwashing schemes and fail the workers they are meant to protect.
While large shipping vessels are meant to last for years, all vessels eventually reach the end of their working lives. These vessels must then be dismantled, a process known as shipbreaking. Maran, a UK-based company, sold a shipping vessel to a demolition cash buyer to have its shipping vessel demolished. This post focuses on a decision issued by the Court of Appeals for England and Wales on March 20, 2021, against Maran’s appeal of the trial court’s decision denying Maran’s application for reverse summary judgment.
In a 2019 segment on working conditions in Amazon’s eerily named “fulfillment centers,” Comedian John Oliver gave the world’s largest e-commerce company the brilliant faux-tagline: “Amazon: try not to think about it.” But as the world watched the historic unionization drive at an Amazon fulfillment center in Bessemer, Alabama unfold over the last several months, ending with a defeat to the organizers earlier this month, the reality of Amazon's labor practices have become harder to ignore.
While 2021 has not yet been the year we were hoping for, there is one bright spot: European courts are beginning to hold parent companies liable for human rights abuses committed outside the home country. In January 2021, the Hague Court of Appeal found Royal Dutch Shell’s (Shell) Nigerian subsidiary, Shell Petroleum Development Company (SPDC), liable for oil spills that occurred in the Niger Delta, an oil-rich region in Nigeria.
A Dutch appeals court reversed a lower court decision and found Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria (SPDC), responsible for several oil spills impacting three Niger Delta communities. In a first for a Dutch court, it also found that Royal Dutch Shell, SPDC’s parent company, breached a duty of care for foreign operations.
Piracy may seem like historical fiction, but pirates remain active around the world today. For example, criminal organizations in Somalia looting commercial vessels have recently gained global attention. However, piracy, as it is understood in international law, is also prevalent in fishery operations that engage in forced labor, human trafficking, and other human rights abuses. US companies source seafood from these violent fishery vessels and sell them to American consumers every day.
Combating Forced Labor
Ghana is the second largest producer of cocoa in the world, home to over 800,000 smallholder farmers who make up about 60 percent of Ghana’s agricultural workforce. Despite the massive profits that global chocolate companies earn, poverty is pervasive in Ghana’s cocoa-growing communities. According to the 2022 Cocoa Barometer, an overwhelming majority of farmers and their families live in poverty: the average cocoa farmer earns between $0.40 and $0.45 USD per day, whereas the living wage in Ghana is estimated as of 2022 to be $13.5 USD per day. Meanwhile, chocolate companies have been making record profits despite the pandemic and global inflation.
The problem with the cocoa commodity price spike is not the increased price. Cocoa should be priced higher! But more of that value needs to go to the farmers who grow it. Outside of the commoditized market that supplies bulk quantities of cocoa to corporations such as Nestlé and Mondelez, alternative supply chain models already exist. Some smaller “premium” chocolate companies contract directly with farmers, paying up to $12,000 per metric ton of cocoa. They pay the premium price to ensure a supply of beans that are harvested by ethical, well-compensated laborers on an environmentally sustainable farm.
The United States is both a world leader in the protection against forced labor – and one of the world’s most practiced and committed violators. This hypocrisy is due to an inherent contradiction in U.S. law: while it is illegal to import goods produced with forced or prison labor, it is not illegal to produce goods using prison labor or export goods produced in such a manner. This inconsistency means that incarcerated workers in the United States produce products that can – and likely are – exported to other countries, where they can be sold, perhaps even labeled as “Made in USA.”
Canada’s long-awaited, Fighting Against Forced Labour and Child Labour in Supply Chains Act (Act) went into effect on January 1, 2024. While it is largely a disclosure law, it also makes Canada the first country in the world to ban the importation of goods made with child labor—a bold and controversial move, discussed further below. In this blog post, we provide an overview of the two key elements of the Act and then explain the Act’s limitations compared to other supply chain legislation.
Across Nigeria, children, teenagers, and adults spend long days working on cocoa farms. Samuel* is one of these workers, a teenager who looks to be under eighteen – although he refused to tell us his age. Like the other workers on the farm, Samuel spends the day using a machete to chop down cocoa pods from trees, cut them open and remove the cocoa beans for drying and fermenting – dangerous work for anyone, but especially for children.
Durante los 365 días desde que se bloqueó la entrada de su azúcar a los Estados Unidos por trabajo forzoso, el Central Romana ha optado por implementar sólo cambios superficiales para los cañeros y utilizar estrategias políticas en un aparente intento de hacer desaparecer la WRO.
Over the 365 days since its sugar was blocked from entering the United States, Central Romana has chosen to implement only superficial changes for workers while pulling political strings in an apparent effort to make the import ban disappear.
Far from being “empowered” by distant shoppers, or “thriving in fair and safe conditions,” workers on Fair Trade USA and Equitable Food Initiative certified farms in the San Quintín Valley in Baja California, Mexico have likened themselves and their conditions to “slavery of the 21st century.” This post introduces the report, Certified Exploitation: How Equitable Food Initiative and Fair Trade USA Fail to Protect Farmworkers in the Mexican Produce Industry, and its key findings.
Lejos de "empoderar" o hacer "prosperar en condiciones justas y seguras" a los trabajadores de las granjas certificadas por Fair Trade USA y Equitable Food Initiative, del valle de San Quintín, en Baja California, México, los trabajadores se han comparado a sí mismos y a las condiciones laborales bajo las que viven como unos "esclavos del siglo XXI". Este blog presenta los principales hallazgos del informe: Explotación Certificada: Equitable Food Initiative y Fair Trade USA y su Contribución al Abuso Laboral de los Trabajadores Agrícolas en la Industria Mexicana de Hortalizas.
On August 21, 2023, attorneys at Corporate Accountability Lab (CAL), Global Labor Justice-International Labor Rights Forum (GLJ-ILRF), and the Law Offices of John Burton filed an amicus brief with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on behalf of more than twenty human rights organizations and U.S. shrimp producers supporting the plaintiffs in Ratha v. Rubicon Resources, LLC.
The West African cocoa industry, where two-thirds of the world’s cocoa is grown, is notorious for its human rights abuses. From hazardous child labor to child trafficking to the poverty wages that farmers earn, little of the cocoa supply chain in West Africa is “fair” or “sustainable.” Yet over the past decade, certification schemes – such as Rainforest Alliance, Fairtrade International, and Fairtrade USA – and so-called sustainability programs – like Mondelez’s Cocoa Life, Nestlé’s Cocoa Plan, Mars’ Cocoa for Generations, and Hershey’s Cocoa For Good – have proliferated.
On February 14, 2023, Corporate Accountability Lab (CAL) submitted information to Customs and Border Protection (CBP) under Section 307 of the Tariff Act documenting instances of forced child labor in the Ivorian cocoa industry. This petition comes exactly three years after we first provided CBP with information documenting child trafficking and forced labor on the Ivorian cocoa farms that source to chocolate brands in the United States.
These days, if you go into a grocery store, there are numerous labels on food products touting how ethical and sustainable the product is. Yet these certification labels often misrepresent the labor and environmental standards used to produce these products. Certification schemes, such as Fairtrade International, were initially developed to provide workers – often farm workers in rural areas – with increased income, better working conditions, and a steady stream of buyers. Moreover, they signaled to consumers that the products were produced sustainably, without exploiting workers, children, or the environment.
La semana pasada, más de 200 cañeros protestaron ante el Ministerio de Trabajo de la República Dominicana, pidiendo que se actúe sobre la situación de los derechos humanos en Central Romana a la luz de la WRO. Coordinador sindical Jesús Núñez, afirmó: "Estamos de acuerdo con las sanciones, pero no se pueden levantar sin respuesta a nuestras demandas".
Last week, more than 200 sugarcane workers protested before the Dominican Republic’s Ministerio de Trabajo (Ministry of Labor), calling for action on the human rights situation at Central Romana Corporation Limited in light of the US import ban on the company’s raw sugar and sugar products. Union Coordinator Jesús Nuñez said: “We’re on board with the sanctions, but they can’t be lifted without response to our demands.”
This post discusses human rights abuses associated with the 2022 World Cup that are currently under global scrutiny. We look briefly at these abuses and some of the systems that drive them. We then suggest basic steps that FIFA and other world sporting event organizers should take to address human rights abuses behind mega sporting events.
El 23 de noviembre de 2022, la Oficina de Aduanas y Protección Fronteriza (CBP, por sus siglas en inglés) de los Estados Unidos emitió una Orden de Retención (WRO, por sus siglas en inglés) contra su producción de azúcar y productos azucareros producidos por Central Romana Corporation, Ltd (Central Romana) en la República Dominicana. Recibimos esta WRO y urgimos al CBP a que se asegure de que Central Romana adopte y a haga cumplir medidas efectivas para remediar las atroces condiciones de trabajo y el trabajo forzoso que tienen lugar en su propiedad y en las condiciones que la empresa creó.
On November 23, 2022, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) issued a Withhold Release Order (WRO) against all sugar and sugar products produced by Central Romana Corporation Limited (Central Romana) in the Dominican Republic. We welcome this WRO and urge CBP to ensure that Central Romana takes real steps to remediate the egregious working conditions and forced labor taking place on its property and under conditions the company created.
Yesterday’s election results gave momentum to a national movement to #endtheexception (led by the Abolish Slavery National Network). We urge everyone, as you wait for the balance of power in Congress to be decided, to contact your representatives and demand they pass House Joint Resolution 53 and Senate Joint Resolution 21, identical proposals to amend the US Constitution “to prohibit the use of slavery and involuntary servitude as a punishment for a crime.”
At Corporate Accountability Lab, we love chocolate as much as anyone, but this Halloween, we’re haunted by the harrowing stories cocoa farmers told our attorneys during field visits across Cote d’Ivoire and Ghana last month. Some stories in particular stand out: one village’s entire harvest — thousands of dollars’ worth of cocoa beans — being stolen; twelve-year-old children going to work on cocoa farms full time; company representatives adjusting bean-weighing scales so that farmers are credited for less production than they are owed; devastating tree diseases wreaking havoc on cocoa farms, decreasing yields by as much as 60 percent; companies refusing to pay the premiums they promised to farmers; families without food or access to any sort of medical care; and communities without schools and teachers.
Lawyers acting for the Uyghur Human Rights Project (UHRP) and the World Uygur Congress (WUC) filed a criminal complaint in Buenos Aires for genocide and crimes against humanity committed against Uyghurs and other Turkic people. If Argentine officials hear the case, it will be the first time that evidence of the genocide happening in northwest China has appeared before a court.
For decades, Central Romana’s sugarcane workers in the Dominican Republic have labored under dangerous conditions, often working thirteen hour days in the hot sun, cutting sugarcane with machetes, and earning poverty wages. Most workers live in Central Romana’s bateyes (essentially company towns) in dilapidated homes, many of which do not have running water or electricity. Moreover, most of Central Romana’s workers are Haitian or of Haitian descent. Although many were born in bateyes, they often lack documentation and regular immigration status – a result of discriminatory laws. Central Romana has exploited their workers’ vulnerability to keep them in conditions of forced labor.
Today, June 21, 2022, the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act (UFLPA) went into effect. This legislation passed with overwhelming bi-partisan support, a rarity in this current political climate. The UFLPA establishes a rebuttable presumption that no goods produced wholly or in part in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (XUAR) may be imported into the US. Importers may rebut the presumption by presenting clear and convincing evidence that the goods were not produced using forced labor – a high bar.
CAL and 18 other human rights organizations recently filed an amicus brief with the United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in support of the plaintiffs in Keo Ratha, et al. v. Phattana Seafoods, Co. Ltd. et al. (Ratha). The Ratha plaintiffs, Cambodian villagers living in poverty, allege that several US and Thai companies violated US and international law by engaging in a joint venture that relied on trafficked and forced labor of plaintiffs and others to produce shrimp and seafood for export to the US market. The amicus brief, written by Global Labor Justice-International Labor Rights Forum, supports the plaintiffs’ petition for rehearing en banc of a Ninth Circuit decision that would preclude them from seeking redress against the defendants and set dangerous precedent for other victims of trafficking and forced labor seeking justice in US courts.
GLJ-ILRF is suing Bumble Bee under the District of Columbia Consumer Protection Procedures Act (CPPA) on behalf of itself and the general public, in the interest of Bumble Bee consumers in Washington, D.C. GLJ-ILRF, which is represented by Richman Law & Policy, seeks a declaration from the court that Bumble Bee’s practices violate the CPPA and an injunction to prohibit the company from continuing to engage in misleading advertising.
GLJ-ILRF’s claims that Bumble Bee has engaged in false and deceptive marketing are based on the company’s representations about a “fair and safe supply chain,” including that it is “best-in-class” for worker safety standards and “champion[s] sustainable fishing,” despite substantial evidence of forced labor and worker safety violations.
Corporate Accountability Lab has been working on blocking imports into the United States of goods produced using forced labor, relying largely on Section 307 of the Tariff Act of 1930. This blog looks at possibilities for using controls on exports as a way of advancing human rights. The human rights issues here do not center on how goods were produced; they center on how goods are likely to be used. Recent statements joined by the United States emphasize the need to be proactive in ensuring that advanced technologies are not used for such purposes as state-sponsored, repressive cybersurveillance. The technologies at the heart of this effort include artificial intelligence and advanced surveillance technologies (e.g., facial recognition technologies).
Across the globe, an estimated 25 million people work in conditions of forced labor. In many of these cases, the private companies that supply the cotton, cocoa, and coffee we use every day directly benefit by producing and buying goods at lower costs.
Legal prohibitions on importing goods produced with forced and prison labor authorize customs and border officials to block goods from entering major markets, a strong incentive for companies to clean up their supply chains. Import prohibitions can fundamentally challenge companies’ profit models and thus their behavior: with the ability to sell goods in a country at risk, a company’s incentive to cut costs by using forced and prison labor drops drastically.
CAL is excited to introduce our newest staff member, Dean Pinkert. In this introductory blog, Dean discusses his background and what led him late in his career to join CAL and focus on international human rights and environmental sustainability.
Dean is highly motivated to “give back” after having achieved his goals in private practice and in government. He takes this to mean embracing a wider agenda--leveraging the law to advance global human rights and environmental sustainability--as well as serving as a resource for CAL colleagues and allies.
Corporate Accountability in Transitional Justice
Beginning with the history of the case, this post covers the facts and implications of the recent unanimous verdict reached by a federal jury in In re Chiquita. The first part of the post details Chiquita’s history in Colombia, the human rights abuses associated with its relationship with the United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia (AUC), and the litigation that followed. The second part of the post considers the immediate future of this case as well as its systemic implications with a particular focus on this verdict’s implications for the use of state tort law in human rights litigation.
While the just transition is gestured at as a solution to the climate crisis, the extraction of critical minerals that underlies the transition often violates human rights and causes environmental damage, underscoring the limitations of the growth-focused economic model. A truly just transition is ultimately a regenerative one, of ecological resilience and reduced resource consumption. But until that can be achieved, green energy supply chains must be improved. Workers and others directly impacted by the energy transition’s thirst for critical minerals must be treated with dignity, agency, and autonomy.
Imagery from Kolwezi, DRC, which has been referred to as a disappearing city, because of the encroachment of cobalt mines on its urban area.
Attribution: Map Data: Google, Airbus Technologies, 2023.
El mes pasado, Corporate Accountability Lab presentó un informe a la Jurisdicción Especial para la Paz de Colombia ("JEP"). El informe examina el papel que tuvieron las multinacionales bananeras en el conflicto armado colombiano y traslada información y evidencia asociada con litigios en tribunales estadounidenses. Esta información evidencia presuntos acuerdos de financiación que beneficiaron a empresas y grupos armados ilegales, los cuales cometieron crímenes y violaciones a los derechos humanos. Este blog proporciona información sobre el presunto papel de Chiquita y Dole en el conflicto armado por medio de su financiación a grupos paramilitares. Este blog también amplía la presentación anterior de CAL sobre el papel que Drummond y Prodeco tuvieron en el conflicto, abordando y proporcionando recomendaciones sobre temas como la violencia antisindical, una transición justa y alternativa a combustibles fósiles, y una justicia restaurativa.
Last month, Corporate Accountability Lab submitted a report to Colombia’s Special Jurisdiction for Peace (“JEP” for its Spanish acronym). The report analyzes the role that multinational banana companies played in the Colombian armed conflict and provides evidence obtained by U.S. courts of financing arrangements benefiting these companies and illegal armed groups that committed widespread human rights abuses. This post provides information regarding Chiquita and Dole’s alleged role in the armed conflict and expands on CAL’s earlier submission by addressing and providing recommendations on the issues of anti-union violence, a just transition away from fossil fuels, and restorative justice.
From June 26th to June 28th, 2022, CAL and our partners at the African Coalition for Corporate Accountability, Dejusticia, and the Comisión Intereclesial de Justicia y Paz held an in-person gathering of the Corporate Liability and Sustainable Peace (CLASP) Lab, a collection of nearly 40 leaders and advocates from 25 countries, in Bogotá, Colombia. The convening was the culmination of a year-long virtual “social lab” process in which we led the group through an adaptation of our legal design process around the question of corporate impunity for human rights and environmental abuses committed during conflict–and how to break with that impunity.
El mes pasado, la Comisión Colombiana de Juristas (CCJ) en alianza con PAX Colombia y el Sindicato Nacional de Trabajadores de la Industria Minera, Petroquímica, Agrocombustibles y Energética (Sintramienergética) presentó el informe titulado “La explotación minera de Drummond Ltda.: epicentro de persecución, asesinatos y violaciones de libertades sindicales” a la Jurisdicción Especial para la Paz (JEP). El informe se centra en la violencia sufrida por el sindicato Sintramienergética, incluyendo el exterminio de sus líderes sindicales en el 2001. Este blog es una actualización del blog de abril de 2021. Esta entrada proporciona información adicional sobre los asesinatos de los líderes sindicales, a la vez que describe su trabajo, el contexto en el que fueron asesinados y la lucha actual contra la impunidad por sus muertes.
Last month, the Comisión Colombiana de Juristas (CCJ) in alliance with PAX Colombia and the Sindicato Nacional de Trabajadores de la Industria Minera, Petroquímicas, Agrocombustibles y Energética (Sintramienergética) submitted a report entitled Drummond Ltda. Coal Mining: epicenter of persecutions, assassinations and violations to freedom of association to the Special Jurisdiction for Peace (JEP, for its Spanish acronym). The report focuses on the violence suffered by the union Sintramienergetica, including the extermination of its leadership in 2001. This blog post is an update to CAL’s blog from April 2021. This post provides additional information on the union leaders’ assassinations while describing their organizing work, the context in which they were killed, and the ongoing fight against impunity for their deaths.
Corporate Accountability Lab presentó recientemente a la Jurisdicción Especial para la Paz (JEP) la primera parte de un informe sobre el papel de las empresas multinacionales en el conflicto armado. El informe sirve para apoyar las investigaciones del tribunal de justicia transicional sobre los crímenes cometidos en regiones como el Cesar y el Magdalena Medio a través de asociaciones entre agentes del Estado, paramilitares y "terceros" ("terceros civiles" o "no combatientes"). La última de estas categorías es muy amplia y puede incluir a las empresas.
Corporate Accountability Lab recently submitted the first half of a report about the role of multinational companies in the armed conflict to the Special Jurisdiction for Peace (JEP, for its acronym in Spanish). The report serves to support the transitional justice tribunal’s investigations into crimes committed in regions including Cesar and Magdalena Medio through associations between state agents, paramilitaries, and “terceros” (“third party civilians” or “non combatants”). The last of these categories is very broad and can include corporations. The role of all actors–not just combatants–must be reckoned with to achieve justice and sustainable peace in Colombia and beyond.
Corporate Accountability Lab (CAL) reafirma su apoyo a la Comisión Intereclesial de Justicia y Paz (CIJP) y su compromiso hacia una paz sostenible en Colombia. En los últimos días, los ataques públicos contra el trabajo de la CIJP han aumentado. La CIJP está siendo falsamente acusada de ofrecer beneficios judiciales a favor de una campaña presidencial. CAL no puede permanecer en silencio ante estos ataques contra uno de nuestros aliados más cercanos en América Latina.
Today, Corporate Accountability Lab (CAL) reaffirms our support for the Comisión Intereclesial de Justicia y Paz (CIJP) and its commitment to sustainable peace in Colombia. In the last few days, public attacks against the work of CIJP have increased. CIJP is being falsely accused of influencing inmates to benefit a presidential campaign. We at CAL cannot remain silent in light of these attacks against one of our closest partners in Latin America.
Six months after the National Strike erupted in Colombia, impunity continues for human rights violations committed against protesters. Over the summer, CAL participated in Mission SOS Colombia, an international mission to observe and report on the government’s response to widespread social protests and conditions that protesters were facing. This post highlights the Mission’s key findings on excessive use of force by state actors and harms committed by corporations in the context of the protest. More information is available in the Mission’s report in Spanish.
Three months ago, the members of the Corporate Liability and Sustainable Peace (CLASP) Lab drafted an open letter expressing our deep concern for Jani Silva's life and safety. We denounced death threats that Jani had received from the criminal armed group Comando de la Frontera in connection to her work as an environmental defender of the Campesino Reserve of the Amazon Pearl of Putumayo, Colombia. Today, we write again after Jani and her family were forced to flee the territory she has defended for decades. She received information about an imminent assassination plan against her.
Corporate Accountability Lab presentó un memorial de amicus curiae solicitando a la Corte Suprema de Estados Unidos que conceda el certiorari en el caso, Doe v. Chiquita Brands International. El caso fue presentado por los familiares de sindicalistas, trabajadores del sector bananero, organizadores políticos, activistas sociales y otras personas atacadas y asesinadas por las Autodefensas Unidas de Colombia (AUC), una organización paramilitar de derecha en Colombia financiada en parte por Chiquita, la empresa bananera multinacional con sede en Estados Unidos. Los demandantes han interpuesto una querella contra Chiquita, alegando que Chiquita fue cómplice de las AUC financiándolas.
Berta Cáceres Flores is the “seed of freedom” for her indigenous Lenca people of Honduras and all who pay tribute to her legacy by continuing her struggle for indigenous liberation. Cáceres’s assassination near midnight on March 3, 2016 was orchestrated by employees at the hydroelectric dam company Desarrollos Energéticos (DESA), after Cáceres and her community disrupted the dam’s construction on their ancestral lands and sacred Gualcarque river. Just this week, over five years later, the former head of DESA was convicted for her murder.
Corporate Accountability Lab filed an amicus brief on behalf of a group of human rights organizations, asking the US Supreme Court to grant certiorari in the case Doe v. Chiquita. The case was brought by the family members of trade unionists, banana workers, political organizers, social activists, and others targeted and killed by the United Self-Defense Group of Colombia (AUC), a right-wing paramilitary organization in Colombia funded in part by Chiquita.
En marzo de 2021 se cumplieron 20 años de los asesinatos de los líderes sindicales Valmore Locarno y Víctor Orcasita a manos de miembros paramilitares colombianos de las Autodefensas Unidas de Colombia (AUC), supuestamente financiados, en parte, por la empresa de carbón Drummond Co., la cual tiene su casa matriz en Alabama, Estados Unidos.
Colombian Human Rights and Environmental Defender Jani Rita Silva and her organization, the Asociación de Desarrollo Integral Sostenible Perla Amazónica (ADISPA), have recently received threats challenging their work to defend the Campesino Reserve of the Amazon Pearl of Putumayo, Colombia from corporate abuse.
March 2021 marked the 20th anniversary of the killings of union leaders Valmore Locarno and Victor Orcasita at the hands of Colombian paramilitary members from the Autodefensas Unidas de Colombia (AUC), allegedly funded, in part, by Alabama-based coal company Drummond Co.
En 2019, dos tercios de los asesinatos a defensores del medio ambiente en todo el mundo tuvieron lugar en América Latina. Esta tendencia no es nueva. En la última década, las comunidades que defienden sus tierras ancestrales y ecosistemas altamente biodiversos en esta región han sido consistentemente las más afectadas a nivel mundial: entre 2009 y 2019 se registraron al menos dos mil eventos victimizantes contra hombres y mujeres y doscientos contra organizaciones que defienden el medio ambiente y la tierra.
En collaboration avec l’African Coalition for Corporate Accountability (ACCA), la Comisión Intereclesial de Justicia y Paz (CIJP) et Dejusticia, CAL a récemment lancé le Laboratoire sur la Responsabilité des Entreprises pour une Paix Durable (Laboratoire CLASP, pour son acronym en anglais), un laboratoire social dont l'objectif est de faire progresser la responsabilité des entreprises dans les contextes post-conflictuels et transitoires du monde
En colaboración con el African Coalition for Corporate Accountability (ACCA), la Comisión Intereclesial de Justicia y Paz (CIJP) y Dejusticia, CAL recientemente lanzó el Laboratorio de Rendición de Cuentas Empresarial para una Paz Sostenible (Laboratorio CLASP, por sus siglas en inglés)-- un laboratorio social convocado para avanzar la rendición de cuentas empresarial en contextos posconflictos y transicionales en el mundo.
In collaboration with the African Coalition for Corporate Accountability (ACCA), the Comisión Intereclesial de Justicia y Paz (CIJP), and Dejusticia, CAL recently launched the Corporate Liability and Sustainable Peace (CLASP) Lab-- a social lab convened to advance corporate accountability in post-conflict and transitional settings around the world.
Recientemente, varias ONG internacionales y colombianas presentaron quejas simultáneas contra las tres empresas accionistas de Cerrejón en Colombia, Glencore, BHP y Anglo American, alegando graves violaciones de derechos humanos y una devastadora contaminación ambiental por efecto de la actividad minera de Cerrejón.
In 2019, two-thirds of worldwide environmental defenders killings took place in Latin America. This trend is not novel. In this last decade, communities that defend ecosystems and rich biodiversity hotspots in Latin America have been consistently the worst-affected worldwide: at least two thousand victimizing events against men and women and two hundred against organizations defending the environment and the land were recorded.
Last month, several international and Colombian NGOs filed simultaneous complaints against Glencore, BHP, and Anglo American, parent companies of the Cerrejón coal mine in Colombia, alleging serious human rights violations and devastating environmental pollution. The complaints were filed with the National Contact Points (NCPs) of the OECD in Australia, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom.
For months, CAL has worked on strategies designed to hold corporate actors accountable for their role in the Colombian armed conflict. A conflict that lasted for over five decades, displaced millions of families, and left thousands of casualties. A few months ago, we published this blog which provides background on the Colombian armed conflict and CAL’s multi-layered project developing unique legal strategies to hold corporate actors responsible for their conduct.
CAL is excited to introduce our newest staff attorney, Tatiana Devia. In this introductory blog, Tatiana discusses CAL’s work related to Transitional Justice in Colombia, and how the Colombian armed conflict has played a role in her own story. You can reach Tatiana by email at tatiana.devia@corpaccountabilitylab.org.
Ethical Intellectual Property
Most of us do not care how software runs, whether that software is on our computers, our televisions, or our toasters - we just need it to work. However, part of the reason open source software has expanded is because it's in an ecosystem where developers and maintainers are trying to look at the code, use it, modify it, improve it, and even redistribute it. In fact, this concept is so integral to open source software, that many open source software licenses demand that any projects derived from licensed work also be open source, and allow others to use it, copy it, modify it, and distribute it. So, if a company does not adhere to the terms of the license, can you, as a consumer who should have the ability to view the source code of your smart appliances, sue them for breach of contract? If you can, what does that mean for open source software licenses, including ethical open source software licenses, going forward?
Three years ago, we blogged about the successful campaign by Google tech workers to persuade the company to withdraw from Project Maven—a United States Department of Defense program aimed at using artificial intelligence (A.I.) to rapidly analyze and identify drone targets. More than 4,000 Google employees signed a letter to Google’s CEO, Sundar Pichai, demanding that Google “not be in the business of war.” The internal revolt worked: Google declined to renew its contract for Project Maven and published a set of A.I. principles—including a vow that no future A.I. endeavor would be used for “weapons…whose principal purpose or implementation is to cause or directly facilitate injury to people.”
CAL, in partnership with the Organization for Ethical Source (OES), has launched Hippocratic License 3.0 (HL 3.0), an ethical open source software license designed to: (1) offer software developers a license that clearly defines what kind of behavior a potential licensor must adhere to, by basing the ethical standards section of HL 3.0 in international human rights norms; (2) extend software developers the ability to add additional ethical standards clauses to further champion a variety of specific human rights causes; (3) provide software developers the most enforceable ethical open software license to date; and (4) create an opportunity for victims of human rights violations to seek legal remedy through a private right of action.
CAL is continuing to expand its presence in the IP space with the addition of our newest staff attorney, Sameeul Haque. In this introductory blog, Samee discusses CAL’s work with Ethical Source, an organization dedicated to empowering those in the open source tech community to exercise their rights as developers to ensure that their software is used for social good and in service of human rights. You can reach Samee by email at sameeul@corpaccountabilitylab.org.
CAL creates outside-the-box legal mechanisms that give motivated individuals the ability to promote human rights norms by enforcing their own rights.
Earlier this year, advocates and tech workers successfully lobbied Google to abandon a project with the Pentagon, code-named “Project Maven.” Google’s role in the project was to provide artificial intelligence (AI) that would analyze massive amounts of surveillance data for drones. I imagine if you did a survey of human reactions to enlisting artificial intelligence to figure out who to kill with a drone, the average person would check the box next to “dystopic hellscape.”
In part 2, I described how the intellectual property (“IP”) morals clause has enormous potential for economic activism. It’s something that we badly need if we want to ensure that our own IP doesn’t end up fueling unethical supply chains, and it’s something that nobody currently uses.
In part 1, I described the creation of the +CAL copyright licenses. I explained how and why our licenses ensure that the people and environmental inputs that comprise global supply chains are protected by the same “duty of care” that we have as consumers in the United States. Wonky lawyers may be quick to see why this is big deal, but fortunately we’re not all wonky lawyers. In this part, I’m going to discuss in economic terms why our licenses are exciting and why they lay the groundwork for a new frontier in economic activism.
Background
In March 2017, I began working with CAL on a copyright license. Our intent was to create a license that could be used by anyone to condition the use of their copyrighted works on the user’s *contractually enforceable* promise to protect human rights and the environment across the supply chains in which the copyright is used. This is a three-part post is about the creation of the license, the discovery of some exciting new potential for intellectual property commons and economic activism, and the birth of a new folk hero of the commons named activistartmachine. You can shortcut to our software license here and our Creative Commons Plus license here.
Social auditing and certifications
On June 20, the Washington D.C. Superior Court dismissed Corporate Accountability Lab’s (CAL) consumer protection suit against The Rainforest Alliance, Inc. (Rainforest Alliance), an eco-social certifier, for lack of personal jurisdiction. In the same order, the judge refused to grant The Hershey Company’s (Hershey) motion to dismiss the case against them as co-defendants. This post discusses the mixed decision and the significance of the dismissal of claims against Rainforest Alliance.
The West African cocoa industry, where two-thirds of the world’s cocoa is grown, is notorious for its human rights abuses. From hazardous child labor to child trafficking to the poverty wages that farmers earn, little of the cocoa supply chain in West Africa is “fair” or “sustainable.” Yet over the past decade, certification schemes – such as Rainforest Alliance, Fairtrade International, and Fairtrade USA – and so-called sustainability programs – like Mondelez’s Cocoa Life, Nestlé’s Cocoa Plan, Mars’ Cocoa for Generations, and Hershey’s Cocoa For Good – have proliferated.
These days, if you go into a grocery store, there are numerous labels on food products touting how ethical and sustainable the product is. Yet these certification labels often misrepresent the labor and environmental standards used to produce these products. Certification schemes, such as Fairtrade International, were initially developed to provide workers – often farm workers in rural areas – with increased income, better working conditions, and a steady stream of buyers. Moreover, they signaled to consumers that the products were produced sustainably, without exploiting workers, children, or the environment.
This year, states will begin implementing a global minimum tax rate of fifteen percent on multinational corporations with more than €750 million (about $810 million) in revenues. If these tax reforms succeed in increasing tax revenues across the approximately 140 implementing countries as they intend, these additional funds could be used to advance the social and economic rights of their citizens, especially for the most vulnerable populations, including those whose rights have been abused by corporations historically. However, the coming tax reforms are still so riddled with gray areas regarding form and function that it is too early to call the initiative a victory in corporate accountability.