Correspondence
Email sent to SGS media team and general inquiries addresses.
The email asked for comment on the investigation's findings that plants certified under the organization's auditable standard had accepted Uyghurs through Chinese government labor transfers before the certifications were issued.
The Outlaw Ocean Project replied that the work would be published in a dozen outlets around the world, but couldn't confirm specifc publication dates.
Magali Dauwalder, Global Head of Corporate Affairs at SGS, replied: "The audit SGS carried out was a traceability audit. This audit is not a social audit. It doesn’t cover working conditions.
The scope of a traceability audit is to ensure that seafood products that arise from MSC Certified Fisheries are traceable and kept separate from non-certified seafood products. These Chain of Custody audits are conducted by traceability auditors and not social auditors.
We delivered services according to the scope of defined in the contracts and with the MSC Chain of custody standards. The social aspect of these MSC Chain of Custody audits was not carried out by SGS, but instead by other auditing firms.
MSC Chain of Custody certification not only provides seafood buyers with confidence that products can be traced back to a fishery that meets the MSC Fisheries Standard, but it also provides consumers creditable assurance of the traceability of the supply chain back to a certified source. Expressed as an MSC ecolabel to the end consumer, the distinctive blue logo indicates the supply chain has been independently assessed and the product identified as certified comes from sustainable fisheries.”
The Outlaw Ocean Project responded: "Thank you for your engagement and for this helpful clarification on the nature of SGS' involvement. Can I confirm you're saying that SGS has only ever conducted MSC traceability audits at both of the plants referred to in our first email, Shandong Lanrun Aquatic Products Co. Ltd. and Shandong Haidu Ocean Product Co. Ltd.?
We’re communicating with the global customers of 11 MSC-certified Chinese seafood processing plants that use Uyghur forced labor, and as part of these conversations are learning more about the audits conducted at the sites. According to our current records, at least one of these MSC-certified processing plants has undergone an SGS social audit: Qingdao Tianyuan Aquatic Foodstuffs Co. Ltd. (MSC-C- 52638). Our investigation found Uyghur forced labor present at the site over a multi-year period, including within two weeks of the factory receiving its MSC accreditation. Does SGS have any comment to make on this matter?
Our findings suggest that social audits conducted against multiple standards have consistently failed to detect Uyghur forced labor at all 11 sites over several years. Given that SGS routinely conducts audits using SMETA, BSCI and SA800 - and noting that SGS audits have previously failed to identify Uyghur forced labor (e.g. a March 2019 BSCI audit of Hetian Taida Apparel Co. Ltd.) - do you have any comment on the general suitability of social audit as a mechanism for detecting Uyghur forced labor?"
The email included a list of 11 Chinese plants linked to Uyghur labor and asked if SGS conducted social audits at any of them.
John Coolican, Global Head of Corporate Communications at SGS, replied by email, saying: “As already mentioned, we reiterate that no social audit has been conducted by SGS to any of the two plants included in your first email (Shandong Lanrun Aquatic Products Co. Ltd. and Shandong Haidu Ocean Product Co. Ltd.).
In reference to the additional list of processing plants you provided, SGS has conducted SMETA audits to some of those locations, not in the context of MSC certifications but on the request of SEDEX Members” and providing details on the audit type, audit scheme, factory name and audit date for Qingdao Tianyuan Aquatic Foodstuffs Co. Ltd., Rongcheng Haibo Seafood Co. Ltd., and Shandong Meijia Group Company Ltd.
The email continued: “We would like to highlight that SGS conducts social audits strictly following the requirements as they are defined by the audit schemes/ clients programmes for which our organisation is formally approved. The information to be collected during the audit (which provides a snapshot in time) and therefore the way they are reported, is also pre-determined as SGS is using the templates provided by the Scheme owners and/or the clients.
During the above mentioned audits, SGS has employed resources who meet all internal and external qualification criteria and the encountered situations were reported as per the applicable scheme requirements.”
The Outlaw Ocean Project responded: "Thank you for sharing these details, we really appreciate the transparency and engagement from SGS on this matter. Our interactions with US importers buying from some of these parties indicate that SGS has undertaken audits on other dates not listed here. Please could you provide a comprehensive account of SGS social audit activities in relation to each of these sites? Relatedly, can I confirm whether the 12 May 2022 SMETA audit of Rongcheng Haibo included worker dormitories in scope?"
John Coolican of SGS responded: "We have provided you with all the audits our social audit teams in China have conducted since 2015 for the factories listed. If you are in possession of other reports for these factories that carry our name, we will need more details (report number, date of the audit, name of the auditors) to further investigate." His email added: "We are not at liberty to publicly release specific details of audit report results."
The Outlaw Ocean Project replied, clarifying that the query about audit operations concerns whether the scope of the audit includes worker dormitories, and not the disclosure of audit report results.
John Coolican responded: "Unfortunately, once again, I must reiterate our comment in the last email. We are not at liberty to publicly release specific details of audit report results."