- On 18 November, the ILO published a new edition of the ILO indicators of forced labour. This is the first major revision since the indicators were originally published in 2012.
- There are no changes to the 11 forced labour indicators themselves, however, their descriptions have been updated. We’ve flagged key changes below. The new edition also includes a section on State-imposed forced labour, which was not covered in the first publication.
Key updates to the 11 forced labour indicators
- Abuse of vulnerability – Identifies migrant workers as more vulnerable, explicitly includes recruiters as perpetrators, and adds irregular work/residency status as sources of vulnerability.
- Deception – Stresses the centrality of workers’ informed consent and flags informal-sector and contract risks, including no contracts, “substitute” contracts and contracts in a different language.
- Restriction of movement – Extends risk to the recruitment phase and employer-provided accommodation and adds examples such as timed absences, curfews and employer permission to leave a country.
- Isolation – Emphasises that employers may isolate workers to control them and stop them from seeking support, notes that families may be threatened not to contact workers, and flags that informality heightens risk of isolation because sites are not inspected.
- Physical abuse and sexual violence – Expands scope to cover threats against relatives and cases in which workers are forced to witness abuse and underlines sexual violence as a tool of control.
- Intimidation and threats – Notes that this should be assessed from the worker’s perspective and beliefs, and notes that threats can target relatives and co-workers.
- Retention of identity documents – Notes this is a common control method, especially for migrant workers, highlights fears of deportation or being unable to leave the country, and notes employers may try to justify retention on security or visa/administrative grounds.
- Withholding of wages – Notes evidentiary challenges such as falsified payslips and records, and lists tactics used by employers including claims of poor performance, impossible targets, payment in kind and penalties or deductions.
- Debt bondage – Reinforces that workers should not bear recruitment fees or related costs, and details mechanisms used such as unclear repayment terms, inflated living costs, illegal deductions, falsified accounts and illegally high interest rates.
- Abusive working and living conditions – Notes that “The key issue to assess is whether workers have been coerced into remaining in conditions that others would refuse to endure…”
- Excessive overtime – Explicitly references manufacturing and states that “Key factors to assess include whether workers face penalties for refusing overtime, such as dismissal, blacklisting or exclusion from future overtime opportunities. …In manufacturing, forced overtime is often linked to unrealistic production targets. The risk increases where working hours are poorly defined or written contracts are absent.”
State-imposed forced labour
- State-imposed forced labour is not an indicator itself but rather is considered a “particular case” because forced labour indicators may look different in this context.
- Examples of state-imposed forced labour include compulsory work used as political coercion or punishment for dissent; mobilisation of labour for economic development; forced labour as discipline or punishment for strikes; discriminatory compulsory work on racial, social, national or religious grounds; and the misuse or overextension of the few exceptions permitted, such as compulsory military service, prison labour and emergency work.
Additional context
- On 26 November, the ILO also published an updated version of its handbook, Combating forced labour – A handbook for employers and business. It provides a more detailed introduction to forced labour, an overview of its potential impact for businesses and guidance on how to manage it through a 5-step due diligence approach.