Correspondence
Email sent to Olivia Thomson, Communications Manager at Supplier Ethical Data Exchange (Sedex).
The email asked for comment on The Outlaw Ocean Project's findings that plants certified under the organization's auditable standard had accepted Uyghurs through Chinese government labor transfers before the certifications were issued.
Oliva Thomson, Communications Manager at Sedex, replied: "Thanks for reaching out to Sedex and providing us with the opportunity to contribute to this conversation.
We’re pleased that the MSC recognises the value of a SMETA [Sedex Members' Ethical Trade Audit] audit as part of their methodology. We can’t claim detailed knowledge of what other activities and standards they include within their methodology and certification decisions, so it’s not appropriate for us to try and comment on these.
Please note that SMETA itself, or a work site receiving a SMETA audit, is not a certification of workplace conditions and practices. A SMETA audit is a form of assessment carried out to certain standards. It’s designed to identify ethical and social issues at work sites, so we would expect that SMETA audits do indeed find these. Individual sites and companies then decide what action they will take as the result of audit and/or additional assessment findings (we don’t have regulatory powers to mandate or enforce actions, though we do provide guidance and recommendations).
We’d be pleased to provide additional context and information about supply chain sustainability due diligence and assessment, to support journalists’ increased understanding on this and the related complex challenges."
The Outlaw Ocean Project replied, saying: "Sedex's expectation that SMETA should identify ethical and social issues at audited worksites, are Sedex able to comment on why the assessment methodology and standards set by your organization are failing to detect widespread Uyghur forced labor in China's seafood processing sector?"
Oliva Thomson replied for Sedex: "Thanks for your note. We’d be happy to look within our platform at the individual sites, if you could kindly share their details with us, so that we can conduct an internal review of their audits. However, please bear in mind that our terms and conditions prohibit us from sharing or disclosing specific information on any individual member site, or audit, as our members hold ownership of the data on the Sedex platform.
Sedex finds instances of forced labour deeply concerning, and as you know, it is a particularly difficult issue to detect, prevent and remedy.
SMETA audits cover the entire ETI Base Code and provide a snapshot of supplier site performance on the day/s the audit takes place. Audits can act as a starting point for further investigation and a good foundation for suppliers and buyers to understand the ways in which they need to improve to meet local laws and the ETI Base Code. Where more in-depth assessments on specific issues are needed, other assessment tools that allow more focused investigation may be more appropriate.
Forced labour is notoriously difficult to identify and evidence given it is a criminal activity. Instances of forced labour – and sometimes particular practices/behaviours associated with higher risks of forced labour, such as those outlined in the ILO indicators – are often driven underground. The SMETA audit methodology includes assessment points relating to these indicators, and there is a “sensitive issues” process that allows auditors to raise particularly sensitive concerns immediately and confidentially with the site’s customers, allowing quick mitigation and remediation action. However, behaviours may still be covered up and therefore extremely difficult for auditors to find. Auditors cannot make serious allegations of criminal activity without clear evidence.
Currently, it is not advisable to depend solely on a single tool to identify and address all human rights risks and impacts present in global supply chains. We suggest that businesses use a blend of assessment tools and additional measures to gain comprehensive understanding of the circumstances, practices and workers within their supply chains. It is also crucial to tailor assessment activities to regional, industry and site-specific factors.
There are many regional-specific considerations in how to conduct effective supply chain human rights and environmental due diligence. We are aware of reported challenges in conducting supply chain due diligence and on-site audits within some high-risk regions, including constraints on access by independent auditors, that make obtaining reliable information by any safe and ethical means difficult.
These challenges don’t detract from SMETA’s effectiveness in other contexts. Audits continue to identify and enable resolution of thousands of issues at work sites around the world every year."
The Outlaw Ocean Project replied: "Would Sedex's internal review preclude confirming to us which sites were audited under SMETA? And would it preclude disclosing to us the identities of the auditors?
You explain that "behaviours may still be covered up and therefore extremely difficult for auditors to find" and that it is "not advisable to depend solely on a single tool to identify and address all human rights risks". You further note challenges in conducting audits "within some high-risk regions, including constraints on access by independent auditors".
In the context of our findings in China, would you agree that one interpretation of Sedex's response above is that SMETA audits are categorically ineffective at detecting state-imposed forced labor of XUAR ethnic minorities at worksites both inside and outside of the region?
Do you have any examples of SMETA audits identifying, as well as corrective action procedures resolving, XUAR forced labor that you can share with us?"
The Outlaw Ocean Project asked Olivia Thomson at Sedex to respond to the previous questions by close of business on July 6, 2023.
Olivia Thomson responded: "Just acknowledging your email, we will come back to you as soon as we are able to and will do our best to meet your deadline."
Olivia Thomson replied for Sedex: "Thank you for your email, I am sorry we couldn’t quite meet your deadline of yesterday.
We are currently carrying out an internal review of the relevant sites and audits. We are also currently reviewing Sedex’s guidance and stated position on the role of audits regarding state-imposed forced labour, which we will share with you as soon as we’re able to.
Unfortunately we can’t publicly share findings from specific audits – as noted earlier, this is due to our members holding ownership of the data on the Sedex platform. We can only publish analysis and findings using aggregate data where the findings don’t identify specific sites. I’m afraid we also cannot share the identities of individual auditors – we hope you can appreciate how doing so could put those individuals at risk, and legally we can’t share their personal data.
If as a result of our internal review we carry out any sanctions against an audit company, we would be able to share this with you as we publish these decisions on our website. I will let you know if this becomes the case.
In the meantime, we can offer some general insight on social audits and the auditing process.
Auditors must work within the bounds of the laws where they are operating, and can only access sites to conduct an audit with the consent of that site. We recognise that in-person audits, as they can only be carried out with a site’s knowledge, may be less effective than undercover journalists at detecting criminal activity that may have been covered up.
Both forms of assessment, and others, play valuable yet distinct roles in understanding conditions, enabling improvement, and building greater visibility in supply chain regions. As mentioned previously, we recommend companies use a combination of different assessment tools to cross-check and validate risks, impacts, practices, and conditions at sites.
We hope this information is useful."
The Outlaw Ocean Project emailed: "Thanks for your last email and your detailed response. We have a few more follow-up questions on this issue:
- Has Sedex completed its internal review of relevant sites? Can you inform us of the aggregate number of SMETA-audited sites?
- Please could you clarify your current guidance and stated position on the role of audits regarding state-imposed forced labor, as well as the timeline for the guidance review you mention?
- You note that audits "may be less effective than undercover journalists at detecting criminal activity that may have been covered up". What if the activity hasn't been covered up but is quite openly acknowledged by the company?"
Olivia Thomson at Sedex replied with the following: "1. We’re still undergoing our internal review on the matter, and unfortunately cannot disclose details of Sedex members or audits. 2. We anticipate being able to share our updated position and guidance on the role of audits in relation to state-imposed forced labour by mid-August. Our guidance prior to this update is that effective supply chain human rights due diligence, including on forced labour, should involve various assessment tools and other activities. 3. If a company discloses something relevant to an auditor, it would be recorded in the appropriate way, e.g. through the “sensitive issues” process. However, we recognise it may be difficult and risky for auditors themselves to explicitly recognise state-imposed forced labour in practice." The email also asked for an indication of publication date for The Outlaw Ocean Project's research.
The Outlaw Ocean Project replied to say publication date is uncertain but that Sedex's response would be included.
The Outlaw Ocean Project emailed Sedex for an update on the changes to the organization's guidance around audit in relation to state-imposed forced labor.
Olivia Thomson replied: "This is still under development (in review/consultation) – I will share something as soon as we’re able to."
Olivia Thomson responded: "Thanks for your note – I’m afraid we don’t have anything further to share just yet, as we’re still in review and member consultation."
The Outlaw Ocean Project emailed Sedex: "Since we were last in touch with you, our ongoing investigation into the use of forced labor in China’s seafood processing industry has uncovered further findings which we wanted to raise with you. We have found visual evidence of North Korean workers at seafood processing plants in Liaoning Province, China, including two called Donggang Jinhui Foodstuff and Donggang Haimeng. While we are unable to share the evidentiary materials with you at this time, we can say this includes videos of North Koreans workers at Donggang Jinhui and at Donggang Haimeng in 2023. Certification details posted by Donggang Jinhui on its website show it passed a SMETA Sedex audit conducted by BCI Compliance Group Ltd. in December 2022. Separately, we have been informed that Donggang Haimeng was SMETA certified until at least the end of December 2021. Can you clarify if any North Korean workers were identified at the site by these audits? Can you confirm if Donggang Haimeng continues to hold SMETA certification? Also, do you have any updates on the internal review which was underway at Sedex in August and September 2023?"
Olivia Thomson replied for Sedex: "Thank you for continuing to engage with Sedex on this important matter. We will investigate the new information you have shared. As outlined in our previous communications with The Outlaw Ocean Project, please note that SMETA is not a certification – rather, it is a form of assessment. Please understand that, in accordance with our policy, we are unable to disclose confidential information relating to individual Sedex members, sites or audits."
Olivia Thomson emailed for Sedex: "We commend you on your story regarding North Korean labour in the Chinese seafood industry, which is clearly the result of extensive effort, resources and dedication.
I’m contacting you to request a small clarification regarding your reference to Sedex in the El País, Le Monde and other outlets’ articles. Sedex itself does not “review workplaces” – we provide businesses with the necessary tools, such as our data platform/network and methodology, to enhance their understanding of workplaces and supply chain practices. As outlined on our website and confirmed to The New Yorker last year, Sedex works with a set of third-party, independent audit companies who are approved by us to use the SMETA methodology. Sedex doesn’t carry out SMETA audits directly, and we aren’t a regulator or inspector of workplaces.
I apologise that this was not clear. We would greatly appreciate your support in making this correction."
The Outlaw Ocean Project replied: "Thanks for your email and continued willingness to engage on these important issues.
Your recent email states: "Sedex itself does not “review workplaces” – we provide businesses with the necessary tools, such as our data platform/network and methodology, to enhance their understanding of workplaces and supply chain practices."
The two publications you mention in your recent email -- El Pais in Spain and Le Monde in France -- have published our stories and in them they clearly state that video shown at the Jinhui event "showed off a wide array of Western certifications, from companies like the Marine Stewardship Council and Sedex, which are supposed to check workplaces for abuses." (This plant was found to use North Korean workers and is tied to Sedex via certification documentation). The video that we published from Jinhui does indeed show the mention of Sedex, as you can see in the screengrab below. 
The stories published also say that the certification - a process carried out by approved Sedex auditors - is supposed to check for abuses, which is accurate.
Furthermore, for the sake of transparency and context, we have published all of your input on these matters in full form. That includes your June 23, 2023 email where you explained: "SMETA itself, or a work site receiving a SMETA audit, is not a certification of workplace conditions and practices. A SMETA audit is a form of assessment carried out to certain standards. It’s designed to identify ethical and social issues at work sites, so we would expect that SMETA audits do indeed find these." (To clarify for our readers: Sedex Members' Ethical Trade Audit (SMETA))
We think having already published in full your explanation on this matter on our website, we have provided more than enough context on the topic."