# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Nestlé-free zone

Nestlé is the target of a boycott because it contributes to the unnecessary death and suffering of infants around the world by aggressively marketing baby foods in breach of international marketing standards.

If you want to know why there is a boycott and how you can get involved, read our Boycott overview.

It's Nestlé-Free Week from 30 October - 5 November 2017. Click here for some specific campaign activities.

On this page:

Latest news:

It's Nestlé-Free Week from 30 October - 5 November 2017. Click here for some specific campaign activities.

Nestlé practices exposed in new Breaking the Rules, Stretching the Rules 2014 monitoring report.

Order our Nestlé-Free Kit to promote the boycott.

UPDATED Nestlé formula labels poster 2016: Nestlé claims to believe breastfeeding is the best start in life for a child, but promotes its infant formula around the world with claims such as it "protects" babies and is the "gentle start" (click on the poster, left, for examples). Nestlé promised to its "natural start" claim drop in 14 October 2014 following a campaign during its Creating Shared Value Forum in Mexico. But Nestlé Chairman, Peter Brabeck-Letmathé, refused to drop the other claims when these were raised at several shareholder meetings. With a change to the top management in 2017, IBFAN raised this and other action required by Nestlé again at the shareholder meeting.

Tigers feature film based on a former Nestlé baby milk salesman taking on the industry with the help of IBFAN: In cinemas soon - sign up for information on screening dates.

Update 46 and Boycott News newsletter: Nestlé's Creative Storytelling Venture exposed and other news.

Nestlé-Free Zone stickers - click here. Mugs: Give Nescafé the Boot mugs are back - Nestlé-Free Zone mugs now in.

Nestlé Boycott page on Facebook - click here to become a fan and invite your friends.

As well as boycott materials, our online Virtual Shop has resources for health workers and mother-support groups to provide independent and accurate information. Check out the IBFAN Breastfeeding Calendar and the Infant Formula Explained DVD.

Boycott overview

Nestlé, the maker of Nescafé, is the target of a boycott because it aggressively markets baby foods around the world in breach of international marketing standards, contributing to the unnecessary death and suffering of infants. Baby Milk Action and its partners in the International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN) monitor what companies are actually doing on the ground.

Nestlé promotes its baby milk around the world with the claim such as it is the 'natural start', 'gentle start' and 'protects' babies. In truth, babies fed on formula are more likely to become sick than breastfed babies and, in conditions of poverty, more likely to die. Nestlé has promised to drop the 'natural start' claim by mid-2015 following pressure from the campaign, but not the others.

The World Health Organisation says: "Globally, breastfeeding has the potential to prevent about 800,000 deaths among children under five each year if all children 0-23 months were optimally breastfed." That is 11.6% of all deaths amongst children under five years old could be prevented by breastfeeding.

Expensive baby foods can also increase family poverty. Poverty is a major cause of malnutrition.

Nestlé targets pregnant women, mothers of babies and young children and health workers to promote its products and boost its sales.

Nestlé also puts babies who need to be fed on formula at risk. It refuses to warn on labels that powdered formula is not sterile and may contain harmful bacteria and does not give correct instructions on how to reduce the risks - unless forced to by law (as in the UK, where it markets the SMA brand).

The boycott holds Nestlé to account and forces it to make changes, while also keeping the issue in the public eye (see Nestlé boycott successes). However, Nestlé continues systematic violations in those countries which have not yet brought in independently monitored and enforced legislation implementing the marketing requirements, which is another part of our strategy for protecting infant health and mothers' rights.

The boycott will continue until Nestlé accepts and complies with Baby Milk Action's four-point plan for saving infant lives and ultimately ending the boycott.

As the largest company, Nestlé sets trends others follow. It also takes the lead in undermining regulations implementing the marketing standards. It is now rivalled by Danone, the second biggest company, as a source of violations. Danone is targeted with the DanoNO campaign.

See our briefing on Nestlé for examples of Nestlé marketing practices, with images, links and references.

Register with Baby Milk Action to receive email alerts.

Evidence of Nestlé malpractice

If you doubt that Nestlé is doing anything wrong, see the monitoring evidence in our Campaign for Ethical Marketing section.

Reports from Save the Children (February 2013) and UNICEF Lao (released April 2013) also highlight violations by companies, with Nestlé being prominently criticised.

We have responded to some of the misinformation given out by Nestlé Public Relations Machine in the report Nestlé's Creative Storytelling Initiative.

Supporting the boycott

You can register your support for the boycott via our contact page.

You can encourage organisations to endorse the Nestlé boycott. See our sample resolution.

You can find a list of Nestlé's principal products in the UK by clicking here.

It is important to tell Nestlé you are supporting the boycott - even if only for Nestlé-Free Week.

Materials for promoting the boycott

You can download a Nestlé-Free Zone poster and other posters from our archive site to promote the boycott in your locality.

If you would like to hold a meeting, why not order one of the films in our on-line Virtual Shop?

Download our leaflet on why to boycott Fairtrade KitKat.

Very useful items for your campaigning are the product list cards, giving Nestlé's principal brands.

You could ask people to send letters to Nestlé as part of our Campaign for Ethical Marketing.

If you would like to give a talk yourself you might like to download a powerpoint presentation and a short presentation to adapt for your own use (the text has been checked to be legally accurate - please take care if adding information of your own).

If you like role playing, you could try doing something like the Nestlé challenge stunt Baby Milk Action did at Nestlé (UK) HQ at a past demonstration. Click here for details.

Keep us informed of your activities. It can help to generate international media coverage.

Nestlé-free zone banners and logos

If you have a website, why not place this banner advertisement there?

For the image to automatically update on your site, don't copy it, but link to it using :

http://www.babymilkaction.org/flash/nestlefreebanner.gif

For simplicity, you can copy the code below into the html source code of your web page or add it to your blog when in 'edit html' mode. With a myspace blog, you can add the code directly. With some blogs, you will have to add the link as a separate line. Simply add the URL:

Alternatively use the following image to link to this page.The image address is:

http://www.babymilkaction.org/flash/nestlefreezone.gif

If you use a service such as blogger, you can go to the 'settings' control panel and add an html page element. Cut and paste the text below into the field for the html and the image will appear with a link to this page! Click here for an example.

Alternatively use the following image to link to this page. The image address is:

http://www.babymilkaction.org/flash/nestflown.gif

Email Nestlé and your friends

If you are supporting the boycott, please send an email to Nestlé.

To tell people about the boycott by email, you could cut and paste the following text and adapt it to send to your friends, family and colleagues.

As you probably know, I support the boycott of Nestlé products.

According the the World Health Organisation (WHO) improving breastfeeding practices could prevent 800,000 child deaths every year. Despite this Nestlé continues to push its baby milks in breach of international standards.

Nestlé is the largest of the baby milk companies. Monitoring by groups on the ground around the world shows Nestlé systematically violates the marketing requirements and drives down standards for the industry as a whole. That's why it is singled out for boycott action.

If you don't boycott Nestlé already, I ask that you consider looking at the evidence and giving up Nestlé products, or at least its principal brand, Nescafé coffee.

The boycott has forced some changes from the company, but it is still a long way from complying. Campaigners are also working for laws. Nestlé can comply when it is given no choice. It is not being asked to do something that is impossible, but without pressure it continues to put its own profits before infant health and mothers' rights.

You can find out more information and look at the evidence yourself on the Baby Milk Action website at:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/nestle-boycott
You can sign up there to support the boycott.

It is important to tell Nestlé you will be boycotting it until it accepts and acts on the plan put to it by boycott groups for saving infant lives.

You can telephone Nestlé on the (UK) freephone number 0800 00 00 30 or send a message via its website http://www.nestle.com/

For further information on what has been achieved thanks to pressure from the boycott and why it continues to be important, click here.

Contact us

If you have suggestions or designs you would like us to add to this page, please email mikebrady<AT>babymilkaction.org

If you would like leaflets and petition sheets in quantity, contact us.

The boycott is just one part of Baby Milk Action's strategy to hold the baby food industry to account. Find out more by reading our year report. You can help this work further by becoming a member of Baby Milk Action. If you are outside the UK, contact our partners in the International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Nestlé is the target of a boycott because it contributes to the unnecessary death and suffering of infants around the world by aggressively marketing baby foods in breach of international marketing standards. If you want to know why there is a boycott and how you can get involved, read our Boycott overview.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The authoritative information on the status of approval, acceptance, accession and ratification of the Agreement is provided by the Secretary-General of the United Nations, on the respective internet page of the United Nations Treaty Depositary under: Paris Agreement.

The Paris Agreement is a legally binding international treaty on climate change. It was adopted by 195 Parties at the UN Climate Change Conference (COP21) in Paris, France, on 12 December 2015. It entered into force on 4 November 2016. Currently, as of 27 January 2026, there are 194 Parties to the Paris Agreement.

Its overarching goal is to hold "the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels" and pursue efforts "to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels."

However, in recent years, world leaders have stressed the need to limit global warming to 1.5°C by the end of this century.

That's because the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change indicates that crossing the 1.5°C threshold risks unleashing far more severe climate change impacts, including more frequent and severe droughts, heatwaves and rainfall.

To limit global warming to 1.5°C, greenhouse gas emissions must peak before 2025 at the latest and decline 43% by 2030.

The Paris Agreement is a landmark in the multilateral climate change process because, for the first time, a binding agreement brings all nations together to combat climate change and adapt to its effects.

How does the Paris Agreement work?

Implementation of the Paris Agreement requires economic and social transformation, based on the best available science. The Paris Agreement works on a five-year cycle of increasingly ambitious climate action -- or, ratcheting up -- carried out by countries. Since 2020, countries have been submitting their national climate action plans, known as nationally determined contributions (NDCs). Each successive NDC is meant to reflect an increasingly higher degree of ambition compared to the previous version.

Recognizing that accelerated action is required to limit global warming to 1.5°C, the COP27 cover decision requests Parties to revisit and strengthen the 2030 targets in their NDCs to align with the Paris Agreement temperature goal by the end of 2023, taking into account different national circumstances.

Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs)

In their NDCs, countries communicate actions they will take to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions in order to reach the goals of the Paris Agreement. Countries also communicate in their NDCs actions they will take to build resilience to adapt to the impacts of climate change.

Long-Term Strategies

To better frame the efforts towards the long-term goal, the Paris Agreement invites countries to formulate and submit long-term low greenhouse gas emission development strategies (LT-LEDS).

LT-LEDS provide the long-term horizon to the NDCs. Unlike NDCs, they are not mandatory. Nevertheless, they place the NDCs into the context of countries' long-term planning and development priorities, providing a vision and direction for future development.

How are countries supporting one another?

The Paris Agreement provides a framework for financial, technical and capacity building support to those countries who need it.

Finance

The Paris Agreement reaffirms that developed countries should take the lead in providing financial assistance to countries that are less endowed and more vulnerable, while for the first time also encouraging voluntary contributions by other Parties. Climate finance is needed for mitigation, because large-scale investments are required to significantly reduce emissions. Climate finance is equally important for adaptation, as significant financial resources are needed to adapt to the adverse effects and reduce the impacts of a changing climate.

Technology

The Paris Agreement speaks of the vision of fully realizing technology development and transfer for both improving resilience to climate change and reducing GHG emissions. It establishes a technology framework to provide overarching guidance to the well-functioning Technology Mechanism. The mechanism is accelerating technology development and transfer through its policy and implementation arms.

Capacity-Building

Not all developing countries have sufficient capacities to deal with many of the challenges brought by climate change. As a result, the Paris Agreement places great emphasis on climate-related capacity-building for developing countries and requests all developed countries to enhance support for capacity-building actions in developing countries.

How are we tracking progress?

With the Paris Agreement, countries established an enhanced transparency framework (ETF). Under ETF, starting in 2024, countries will report transparently on actions taken and progress in climate change mitigation, adaptation measures and support provided or received. It also provides for international procedures for the review of the submitted reports.

The information gathered through the ETF will feed into the Global stocktake which will assess the collective progress towards the long-term climate goals.

This will lead to recommendations for countries to set more ambitious plans in the next round.

What have we achieved so far?

Although climate change action needs to be massively increased to achieve the goals of the Paris Agreement, the years since its entry into force have already sparked low-carbon solutions and new markets. More and more countries, regions, cities and companies are establishing carbon neutrality targets. Zero-carbon solutions are becoming competitive across economic sectors representing 25% of emissions. This trend is most noticeable in the power and transport sectors and has created many new business opportunities for early movers.

By 2030, zero-carbon solutions could be competitive in sectors representing over 70% of global emissions.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The authoritative information on the status of approval, acceptance, accession and ratification of the Agreement is provided by the Secretary-General of the United Nations, on the respective internet page of the United Nations Treaty Depositary under: Paris Agreement. The Paris Agreement is a legally binding international treaty on climate change.

# data[].attributes.headline
Opinion piece on Tesla and sustainability

# data[].attributes.subject
Opinion piece on Tesla and sustainability

# data[].attributes.body
"TESLA becomes a model for sustainable leadership"

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Tesla recently reached a market value of USD $ 50.84 billion, briefly surpassing General Motors - which has a USD $ 50.79 billion market value - and thus becoming the most valuable car company in the USA. How could a small 14-year-old company take on the 109-year-old giant and largest US automaker? After all, GM produces in 12.5 days what Tesla produces in one year. The answer is the leadership shown by Tesla in incorporating the concept of sustainability at the heart of its business strategy.

Far from focusing on short-term goals and immediate growth - as many traditional car makers do - Tesla decided from the beginning to adopt a big picture approach by focusing on addressing two important sustainability imperatives: the transition to a carbon neutral economy and the urgent need for a new sustainable business model for the transportation industry based on zero emissions.

Most present government policies request automakers to increase their energy efficiency and reduce the environmental footprint caused by engines. In other words, the demand from the regulator to automakers is to produce something that pollutes less and consumes a smaller amount of energy resources.

Tesla was not happy with this "minimalistic" approach because its main objective was to lessen environmental problems, not to fix them. Far from concentrating on producing less harm, the approach of Tesla is to focus on creating higher value for its customers and for society at large. Tesla's mission is "to accelerate the world's transition to sustainable energy" by focusing on renewable energy. And the vision of the company is "to create the most compelling car company of the 21st century by driving the world's transition to electric vehicles." This means that Tesla was founded with a long-term business model in mind and a built-in understanding of societal demands.

What's next? Will Tesla become the leader of the car industry in the near future? There are and still will be bigger players in the car industry. In fact, VW is currently worth USD $ 70 billion and Toyota's market value is about USD $ 160 billion. But VW cheated on the emission performance of its diesel engines in the USA and as a result is paying USD $ 20 billion in penalties in that market. And Toyota - which created the Toyota way of doing business - found itself in trouble while avoiding accepting its responsibilities when the braking systems of some of its cars caused tragic accidents.

Tesla has not been free from challenges. A car operating in its computer assisted mode (autopilot system) had a fatal accident in Florida in May 2016, causing the unfortunate death of its 40-year-old driver. But a recent investigation conducted by the US National Traffic Highway System Administration (NHTSA) found no defects in the system and Tesla's autopilot-enabled vehicles did not need to be recalled. Tesla keeps improving its systems, focusing on the big picture and the future. And this sustainable leadership approach is becoming a model for businesses that want to compete in the market place by achieving long-term profits while conserving the resources of the planet and contributing to building a sustainable society.
Francisco Szekely is Adjunct Professor of Global Leadership and Sustainability at IMD. He leads the online-base course Building Business Sustainability.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
TESLA becomes a model for sustainable leadership | IMD article

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Tesla recently reached a market value of USD $ 50.84 billion, briefly surpassing General Motors - which has a USD $ 50.79 billion market value - and thus becoming the most valuable car company in the USA. How could a small 14-year-old company take on the 109-year-old giant and largest US automaker?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
We are committed to ensuring the people, workers, and communities that support our entire value chain are treated with fundamental dignity and respect. We strive to ensure that the products and services we provide are produced in a way that respects human rights.

While it is the duty of governments to protect human rights, Amazon recognizes our responsibility to respect and uphold internationally recognized human rights through the ethical treatment of our workforce and those within our value chain. Guided by the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights , we commit to embedding respect for human rights throughout our business. We continuously evaluate our operations and value chain to identify, assess, and address salient human rights risks; engage key stakeholders; and prioritize key areas where we have the greatest opportunity to have a positive impact on workers and communities. Our approach on human rights is informed by international standards; we respect and support the Core Conventions of the International Labour Organization (ILO) , the ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work , and the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights .

We are committed to investing in our employees, the workers who make our products, and the communities in which we operate. These principles outline our approach to human rights across all aspects of our company.
Our Workplace
We endeavor to provide safe, inclusive, and respectful workplaces, in both our own operations and those throughout our value chain.

Safe and healthy workplaces: We strive to be the most safety-centric organization in the world. We provide a clean, safe, and healthy work environment. The health, wellness, and safety of our workers is our number one priority. Everyone has the right to a safe and healthy workplace with appropriate rules and practices for reporting and preventing accidents, injuries, and unsafe conditions, procedures, or behaviors.

Diversity and Inclusion: We are committed to diversity and inclusion throughout our business. We seek individuals from all backgrounds to join our teams, and we encourage people to bring their authentic, original, and best selves to work.

Equal opportunity: We are committed to ensuring that all workers are treated equally, and we do not tolerate discrimination based on race, color, national origin, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, religion, creed, the presence of any physical, sensory, or mental disabilities, age, political ideology, pregnancy, citizenship, migrant status, veteran status, ethnicity, ancestry, caste, marital or family status, or other legally protected status in hiring and working practices, such as job applications, promotions, job assignments, training, wages, benefits, and termination. Our aim is to ensure employment decisions and actions are based only on business-related considerations-focused solely on an individual's ability to perform the work, not their personal characteristics. As outlined in our Code of Business Conduct and Ethics , we do not tolerate discrimination, violent and threatening behavior, or harassment.

Freely chosen employment: We do not tolerate the use of child labor, forced labor, or human trafficking in any form-including slave labor, prison labor, indentured servitude, or bonded labor-in our operations or value chain.

Employee communication: We value worker feedback. We firmly believe it is in our employees' and the company's best interests to continue our direct communications, and the best way to effect positive change is for our employees to continue working directly with their managers throughout the company. We respect freedom of association and our employees' right to join, form, or not to join a labor union or other lawful organization of their own selection, without fear of reprisal, intimidation, or harassment. We provide training to employees on topics covered within the Code of Business Conduct and Ethics, including how to submit anonymous complaints to Amazon's third-party Ethics Hotline. We are committed to providing our employees with appropriate access to grievance mechanisms and remedial action.
Our Suppliers
We promote safe, inclusive, and respectful workplaces with our third-party suppliers and service providers. We seek suppliers committed to these same principles. Amazon's Supply Chain Standards set forth requirements governing labor standards and working conditions. We implement this commitment through dedicated programs that communicate our expectations to the third-parties we work with, monitor working conditions where products are made or services provided, implement plans to address issues and make improvements where necessary, and engage with stakeholders working to address specific and systemic issues.
How We Do This
Integration throughout our business: We expect and encourage everyone in our business to embed these principles into their everyday work and provide employee training to raise awareness on them. We strive to evaluate and understand the impact of each part of our business on human rights, to address and mitigate negative impacts, and to invest in the people behind the products and services we provide.

Continuous improvement: To ensure we are continuing to hold the highest standards, we continuously review our policies and practices to ensure alignment with these principles and regularly provide updates on progress to senior leadership.

Collaboration: In support of these efforts, we value ongoing collaboration with a broad range of stakeholders, helping us remain vigilant and aware of the potential impacts-both positive and negative-of our products and services on the rights, interests, and well-being of our employees, customers, and communities around the world.
Our Business
Amazon seeks to be Earth's most customer-centric company. We are passionate builders guided by four principles: customer obsession rather than competitor focus, passion for invention, commitment to operational excellence, and long-term thinking. We bring these principles to everything we do, including how we approach human rights.

Our operations: Amazon believes the people, workers, and communities who support our business should be treated with fundamental dignity and respect. As of July 2020, we employed approximately 876,800 full-time and part-time workers across the globe. We manage our operations, including the people working in them, in three segments: North America, International, and Amazon Web Services (AWS). Our online and physical stores enable hundreds of millions of unique products to be sold by us and by third parties. We source, manufacture, sell, and deliver millions of products to consumers.

Our products: Amazon Consumer Private Brands and Amazon Devices offer our customers products spanning diverse categories including apparel, food and beverage, electronics, and home goods. Amazon's suppliers are located around the world and produce, manufacture, assemble, or provide goods or services that are sold and delivered to Amazon.

Third-party sellers: Third parties sell products directly to customers on Amazon.com spanning broad product categories. These orders are either fulfilled by Amazon using our operations or shipped directly by the seller to the customer.

Fulfillment and logistics: More than 250,000 full-time associates support our global network of fulfillment centers. Amazon Fulfillment is where our employees, technology, and innovation come together every day to deliver for our customers. Fulfillment facilities run multiple shifts per day, and employees perform a number of roles-from leading teams to boxing up orders and shipping directly to our customers. We fulfill customer orders in a number of ways using our transportation supply chain. We operate North America and International fulfillment and delivery networks and have co-sourced and outsourced arrangements in certain countries. We also provide digital delivery and offer products in our physical stores as well.

AWS: AWS offers over 175 fully featured services from data centers globally. Ours is the largest global infrastructure footprint of any provider, and this footprint is constantly increasing. AWS teams around the world are building the future. Our people solve a wide variety of technical challenges, always focusing on the customer. Millions of customers-including the fastest-growing startups, largest enterprises, and leading government agencies-trust AWS to power their technology infrastructure. To learn more about AWS, visit .

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
un universal declaration of human rights

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
united nations guiding principles on business and human rights

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
We are committed to ensuring the people, workers, and communities that support our entire value chain are treated with fundamental dignity and respect. We strive to ensure that the products and services we provide are produced in a way that respects human rights.

# data[].attributes.headline
UK by far the biggest enabler of global corporate tax dodging, groundbreaking research finds

# data[].attributes.subject
UK by far the biggest enabler of global corporate tax dodging, groundbreaking research finds

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The UK is by far the world's biggest enabler of corporate tax dodging, helping funnel hundreds of billions of dollars away from state coffers, according to an international investigation.

Of the top 10 countries allowing multinationals to avoid paying billions in tax on their profits, four are British overseas territories.

Chancellor Philip Hammond has pledged to crack down on multinationals like Google and Amazon that boost profits by shifting huge sums through low-tax jurisdictions.

But an index published today by the Tax Justice Network found that the UK has "single-handedly" done the most to break down the global corporate tax system which loses an estimated $500bn (£395bn) to avoidance.

The amount dodged globally each year is more than three times the NHS budget or roughly equivalent to the entire Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of Belgium. Tax haven territories linked to Britain are responsible for around a third of the world's corporate tax avoidance risk - more than four times the next greatest contributor, the Netherlands.

Topping the list was the British Virgin Islands, followed by Bermuda and the Cayman Islands - all British overseas territories. Jersey, a Crown dependency, was seventh while the UK itself comes in thirteenth.

Alex Cobham, chief executive at the Tax Justice Network, described the hypocrisy of rich nations which enable tax avoidance as "sickening".

"A handful of the richest countries have waged a world tax war so corrosive, they've broken down the global corporate tax system beyond repair," Mr Cobham said.

"The UK, Netherlands, Switzerland and Luxembourg - the Axis of Avoidance - line their own pockets at the expense of a crucial funding stream for sustainable human progress.

"The ability of governments across the world to tax multinational corporations in order to pay teachers' wages, build hospitals and ensure a level playing field for local businesses has been deliberately and ruthlessly undermined."

The index, which is the first-ever study of its size and scope, scores each country's system based on the degree to which it allows companies to avoid tax. This is then combined with the scale of its corporate activity to determine the share of global taxes put at risk.

It covers 64 jurisdictions and is based on a score reflecting how aggressively they use tax cuts, loopholes, secrecy and other mechanisms to attract multinational activity.

Other countries in the UK network, including Turks and Caicos Islands, Anguilla, the Isle of Man, and Guernsey, also scored highly for allowing corporate tax dodging.

Such countries have prompted a "race to the bottom" that has depleted tax revenues and has particularly harmed poorer nations, the Tax Justice Network said.

While many of the top 10 tax haven territories are tiny, they are home to trillions of dollars of foreign direct investment - suggesting that many of these flows may be motivated by reducing tax bills rather than genuine economic activity.

Labour's shadow chancellor, John McDonnell, said, "The Tories' record on tax avoidance is embarrassing and shameful.

"The only way the UK stands out internationally on tax is in leading a race to the bottom in creating tax loopholes, and dismantling the tax systems of countries in the Global South.

Angela Eagle asks about Google tax

"The rot has to stop. While Tory leadership hopefuls promise tax giveaways for the rich, a Labour government will implement the most comprehensive plan ever seen in the UK to tackle tax avoidance and evasion."

Mr Cobham added: "To curtail the corporate tax avoidance that costs hundreds of billions of dollars every year, governments must finally deliver international rules that ensure profits are declared, and tax paid, in the places where real economic activity takes place.

"Corporations should be taxed where their employees work, not where their ledgers hide."

Christian Aid condemned the UK for "turning a blind eye" to large-scale tax avoidance and contributing to a lack of vital services across the globe.

The charity's global lead on economic justice, Toby Quantrill, said: "The Corporate Tax Haven Index is a critical piece of work that deepens our understanding of just how broken the global economic system really is.

"It highlights the role of the UK and its network of Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies in undermining the ability of other countries, including some of the poorest in the world, to provide for the most basic rights of their citizens."

He added: "This is a problem that Christian Aid first highlighted more than 10 years ago, and which has been widely acknowledged, yet remains fundamentally unsolved."

A spokesperson for the Treasury said tackling tax avoidance was a priority for the government.

The spokesperson added: "We've been at the forefront of international action to reform global tax rules, using our presidency of the G8 in 2013 to initiate the first substantial renovation of international tax standards in almost a century.

"We also introduced the Diverted Profits Tax to counter aggressive tax planning techniques used by multinationals, and we've secured and protected £200bn in tax revenues since 2010 from compliance activities which would otherwise have gone unpaid."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
UK by far the biggest enabler of global corporate tax dodging, groundbreaking research finds

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The UK is by far the world's biggest enabler of corporate tax dodging, helping funnel hundreds of billions of dollars away from state coffers, according to an international investigation. Of the top 10 countries allowing multinationals to avoid paying billions in tax on their profits, four are British overseas territories.

# data[].attributes.headline
Facebook, Google and Microsoft - 'avoiding $3bn in tax in poorer nations'

# data[].attributes.subject
Facebook, Google and Microsoft - 'avoiding $3bn in tax in poorer nations'

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
"Women and young people are paying the price for an outdated system that has allowed big tech companies, including giants like Facebook, Alphabet and Microsoft, to rack up huge profits during the pandemic, while contributing little or nothing towards public services in countries in the global south," said David Archer, global taxation spokesperson for ActionAid International.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Facebook, Google and Microsoft 'avoiding $3bn in tax in poorer nations'

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
"Women and young people are paying the price for an outdated system that has allowed big tech companies, including giants like Facebook, Alphabet and Microsoft, to rack up huge profits during the pandemic, while contributing little or nothing towards public services in countries in the global south," said David Archer, global taxation spokesperson for ActionAid International.

# data[].attributes.headline
Starbucks - EU unit paid just 2.8% in UK tax last year

# data[].attributes.subject
Starbucks - EU unit paid just 2.8% in UK tax last year

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The European division of Starbucks paid an effective tax rate of 2.8% in the year ending October 2017, after fund transfers between other parts of the business were accounted for, its accounts show.

The company which has faced criticism in the UK for tax avoidance paid just $5.9 million in tax, from UK profits of $213 million, the Financial Times reported.

Company profits in the UK before tax more than halved last year to £4.5 million ($5.9 million), which Starbucks said was because of "challenging" conditions and reduced consumer confidence.

Editor's Note: Starbucks sent a letter to Business Insider on December 6 that has been included in the text below.

The European division of Starbucks paid an effective tax rate of 2.8% in the year ending October 2017, after taking into account payment transfers from other parts of the business, the Financial Times reported.

The coffee brand which has faced criticism in the past for the amount of tax it pays revealed that its largest European operation paid just $5.9 million in tax, from UK profits of $213 million.

The profit in the operation was increased by a $150 million dividend from another group entity on which Starbucks had already paid tax. Without the dividend, the tax rate of the European business was 9.4%, while UK corporation tax is 19.5%.

According to the accounts for Europe, the Middle East and Africa region, the tax bill was reduced thanks to tax breaks which were related to employees being paid in shares, with another reduction coming from the "tax effect of expenses that are not deductible in determining taxable profit."

Company profits in the UK before tax more than halved last year to £4.5 million ($5.9 million), which it said was because of "challenging" conditions and reduced consumer confidence. Starbucks uses five main entities in the UK which have all published their 2017 results.

The UK is challenging but the company says it will continue to invest, Martin Brok, president of Starbucks' EMEA, told the FT.

The coffee company pushed back against the FT's claims and told Business Insider, "Starbucks pays all its taxes and meets all international tax standards and regulations. Starbucks' UK headquartered businesses paid £13.7m of corporation tax in the year to October 2017, an effective tax rate of 25.3%.

Still Starbucks has been repeatedly hit by bad publicity in the UK for its tax affairs.

The Independent reported in 2017 that Starbucks saw public opinion for the company's ethics, fairness and transparency turn 11% more negative between 2016 and 2017, although it scored highly on its products and services.

Paul Monaghan, Chief executive of the Fair Tax Mark, a group that lobbies against corporate tax avoidance told the FT: "It may be that Starbucks' approach to tax is now more responsible, but it's all but impossible to discern given their corporate complexity, staggered filings at Companies House and absence of true country-by-country reporting."

"All governments should require public country-by-country reporting for all companies, so it is clearer if they are paying their dues. The UK is well placed to act sooner - it should not delay implementing legislation passed in 2016 that would require large multinationals in Britain to do this," Oxfam's head of inequality, Rebecca Gowland told newspaper.
Editor's Note: Starbucks requested to Business Insider on December 6 that a statement be included in this September 19 story. We have added the letter below:

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Starbucks' EU unit paid just 2.8% in UK tax last year

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The European division of Starbucks paid an effective tax rate of 2.8% in the year ending October 2017, after fund transfers between other parts of the business were accounted for, its accounts show. The company which has faced criticism in the UK for tax avoidance paid just $5.9 million in tax, from UK profits of $213 million, the Financial Times reported.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How multinationals continue to avoid paying hundreds of billions of dollars in tax – new research

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Governments around the world lose about US$125 billion in revenues every year because of profit shifting to tax havens.

# data[].attributes.headline
Opinion piece on solving corporate tax-dodging

# data[].attributes.subject
Opinion piece on solving corporate tax-dodging

# data[].attributes.body
"The OECD’s latest proposals would change little in a rigged system. Britain should back a new global scheme."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
he international tax system was recently shaken by two new tremors. Ángel Gurría, the secretary-general of the OECD, the club of rich nations that oversees these global rules, told Britain to "hold fire" on its plan to tax big tech firms such as Google, Facebook and Apple at 2% of UK revenues. The US responded by threatening to hike tariffs on UK car exports, but Britain's chancellor, Sajid Javid, insists the tax will still go ahead from April. France's president, Emmanuel Macron, also agreed to delay (but not discard) a similar tax in exchange for the US's agreement not to place tariffs on French exports. The vast tectonic plates of international taxation are finally beginning to shift.

Without a coordinated, global agreement on new tax rules, Gurría argues, the result of all these measures will be a "cacophony and a mess". A new trade war could ensue. But there's another side to this story - one just as important, but less well understood.

In 2019 the central principles that have organised the international tax system for the last century began to publicly unravel. A long OECD consultation aimed at finding ways to patch up the leaky global rules ended with experts agreeing that a completely new set of ideas was needed to govern the digital economy.

Until last year the OECD, influenced by multinationals, treated proposals for unitary tax as one might treat a rabid dog

The tension at the heart of it all is this: when a multinational from one country invests or sells in another, which nation taxes its profits? The old rules are supposed to give each nation a fair bite of global profits by treating each subsidiary of a multinational company as a separate entity, and allowing the host nation to tax it. UK subsidiaries of McDonald's, say, should pay UK tax.

The trouble, as we all now know, is that large companies, helped by large accounting firms, game this system by artificially sucking their profits into tax havens, where they pay little or no tax. Tax Watch UK, an investigative group, estimated recently that five big tech firms - Apple, Google, Facebook, Cisco and Microsoft - made an estimated £30bn in profit from UK customers from 2012 to 2017, but shifted most of these profits offshore for tax purposes, paying just £933m in UK tax between them: a rate of about 3%.

The OECD rules do have some teeth: they help the UK tax its own multinational companies (such as BP and Lloyds) with greater ease (though it has a harder time taxing foreign firms such as Facebook or Netflix). If foreign companies paid tax at the rates of their UK counterparts, the UK might earn an estimated £25bn more per year. Meanwhile, the French treasury reckons that digital giants pay a tax rate that is 14 percentage points lower than the small and medium enterprises that tech giants are strangling in the marketplace. These profit-shifting shenanigans cost the US an estimated $100bn a year, while the IMF and Tax Justice Network estimate they inflict $500-600bn in global tax losses annually, of which poorer countries lose $200bn, far more than the $150bn global aid budget.

The old rules are skewed in favour of rich countries, too, in large part because they help the multinationals' home countries get the biggest share of tax from global profits. This system reflects "a colonial pattern, refined for the 21st century", according to Jayati Ghosh, a prominent Indian economist. The profit-shifting, she adds, "has now become so large, so obscene".

There is a fundamentally different way to tax multinationals that could cut tax havens out of the picture. Called unitary tax, this divides a multinational's total global profits among each country where it operates, using a formula based on real economic substance: the number of employees and the size of sales, turnover and physical assets in each place. Each country may then tax its portion at whatever rate it likes. So if a multinational has a one-person booking office in Bermuda, the formula would allocate only a small share of the pot to that particular subsidiary. Unitary tax has complications - not least because there are many ways to set the formula- but it is the only rational basis for modern global corporate tax.

Until last year the OECD, influenced heavily by multinational businesses, treated proposals for unitary tax as one might treat a rabid dog: with fury, contempt and fear. But it produced a consultation document in 2019 that for the first time embraced unitary tax as a potential solution. The then IMF boss Christine Lagarde weighed in, calling the old tax rules "outdated" and "especially harmful to low-income countries". The Trump administration could have rejected the proposals that would see US multinationals pay more than they currently do - but it hasn't. A Pandora's box has been opened, and this is a good thing.

The OECD's latest proposals to reform the tax system around the digital economy change little: they still treat the "routine" profits from digital activities under the leaky old system, whereas only "residual" or excess profits - maybe a fifth of the pot, if we're lucky - would get a unitary treatment. The OECD wants a broad international agreement by the end of this year. But already the UK, France, Austria, Spain and Italy are considering or implementing their own tech taxes, and more countries will likely do so, adding to the "cacophony" that threatens the cosy consensus of multinationals and the OECD.

As century-old certainties crumble, Britain must face down US threats and show solidarity with Europe. It should also push to adopt a broad unitary tax system until a decent global scheme is ready.

In rich and poor nations alike, millions are seething that the system, riddled with tax havens, is rigged against them. To avoid the pitchforks, leaders must now stand up to multinationals. The good news is that this time something useful might just emerge from the cacophony.

* Nicholas Shaxson is the author of The Finance Curse: How Global Finance is Making us All Poorer

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How to make multinationals pay their share, and cut tax havens out of the picture | Nicholas Shaxson

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
he international tax system was recently shaken by two new tremors. Ángel Gurría, the secretary-general of the OECD, the club of rich nations that oversees these global rules, told Britain to "hold fire" on its plan to tax big tech firms such as Google, Facebook and Apple at 2% of UK revenues.

# data[].attributes.headline
The 20 corporations producing the most ocean pollution

# data[].attributes.subject
The 20 corporations producing the most ocean pollution

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
About 70% of the Earth's surface is covered by oceans. Not only were they the womb from which life likely emerged at least 3.5 billion years ago, but they act as the planet's thermostat, transferring heat from the tropics to higher latitudes and absorbing a substantial amount of the carbon dioxide that the world's plant life does not convert into oxygen through photosynthesis.

Changes to the ocean chemistry, currents, and temperatures have profound effects on global weather patterns, and human industrial and consumption activity is adversely impacting the oceans and their complex ecosystems. The result is a number of species are being driven to extinction.

Plastic pollution has received much attention in recent years as people cringe at images of tropical beaches covered in plastic bags and bottles, animal deaths caused by plastic, and the massive garbage patches found in all of the world's largest bodies of water. This increased focus has helped raise awareness of ocean pollution.

But plastic pollution is just one of the issues. A major and often ignored threat to the oceans' health is greenhouse gas emissions, especially excessive carbon dioxide, which humans are releasing into the atmosphere. These emissions are not only linked to global warming, but also they are causing ocean acidification that is wreaking havoc on marine ecosystems.

In addition to carbon emissions and plastics pollution, oceans are also polluted from oil and chemicals that wash into rivers and wind up in the oceans. This type of pollution, called nonpoint source pollution, includes oil leaked from cars and trucks and runoff from farms and ranches that send herbicides, pesticides, and fertilizers into the oceans via rainwater runoff into rivers.
Mental medicare: San Francisco proposes nation's first universal mental health care system
Taking all three of these major sources of ocean pollution into consideration, 24/7 Wall St. compiled a list of the 20 companies behind among the largest amount of oceanic pollution, including major producers of single-use plastic containers, fossil fuel companies, meat and dairy producers, and agricultural chemical manufacturers responsible for the largest share of oceanic contamination.

It is important to note that this list is not meant to be a conclusive ranking of the world's top polluters. However, these 20 companies represent our best estimate of the largest polluters in the world, based on their relative size in industries that are known to pollute heavily, as well as estimates of these companies' greenhouse gas emissions by third parties.
Saudi Aramco
Energy Corporations
Gazprom
When burned, fossil fuels emit greenhouse gases, which cause ocean acidification, a harmful process that disrupts marine ecosystems. The state-owned Saudi oil and gas giant is the world's most profitable company. It is also the biggest emitter of greenhouse gases in the fossil fuel sector, according to CDP. In addition to being the industry leader in GHG emissions from its own operations, Saudi Aramco is the overall leading supplier of fossil fuels in the global energy sector.
National Iranian Oil
The state-owned gas giant and Russia's most valuable publicly traded company is the second largest source of greenhouse gases, which causes ocean acidification, among global fossil fuel companies based on 2015 data. It ranks third among the top energy companies in terms of greenhouse gas emissions from operations, but the burning of the petroleum liquids and natural gas it produces and sells puts it in second place in overall greenhouse gas emissions, after Saudi Aramco.
Coal India
National Iranian Oil ranks second in greenhouse gas emissions from its operations and third in total emissions linked to its operations and its products behind Saudi Aramco and Gazprom. Recent U.S. sanctions may have impacted the company's ranking, but Iran's state-owned oil and gas company remains one of the top producers and suppliers of greenhouse gases.
Shenhua Group
India's state-owned coal company is the world's single largest generator of coal-based pollution, slightly ahead of China's Shenhua Group based on 2015 data. It is also the fourth largest producer of greenhouse gases among fossil fuel companies. As the dirtiest source of energy, coal burning contributes to ocean acidification.
Will it die or get a second wind?:The economic expansion is poised to be the longest ever Coca-Cola Company
China's state-owned largest coal company was slightly behind its Indian counterpart, Coal India, in total greenhouse gas emissions. The company ranks fourth in greenhouse gas production among the world's top fossil fuel companies and. Overall, China's coal industry is by far the world's biggest source of greenhouse gas production and supply - responsible for more than 14% of human-sourced greenhouse gas emissions between 1988 and 2015, according to CDP.
PepsiCo
Plastic Products Corporations
Nestlé
The Atlanta-based beverage behemoth is the top producer of plastic rubbish making its way into the world oceans, wreaking havoc on wildlife and sending plastic particles into the food chain, according to a global sampling last year of trash Greenpeace and Break Free From Plastic collected in 42 countries around the world. The world's leading beverage bottler, which markets hundreds of brands of carbonated beverages, water, and juices, said last year it uses 3 million tons of plastic packaging annually.
Danone
A global sample of garbage collected on ocean shores and waters last year by Greenpeace and Break Free From Plastic organizations found that the North Carolina-based snack and beverage giant was second to Coca-Cola as the leading source of plastic garbage in the world's oceans. Plastic packaging can take hundreds of years to decompose, and in the oceans it breaks down into tiny pieces that enter the food chain and kill wildlife that consumes it.
Mondelez International
The Swiss multinational food and beverage company, whose brands include Gerber baby food, Perrier water, and KitKat chocolate among others, is the third largest source of plastic trash found in the oceans, according to a global sample of garbage collected on ocean shores last year by Greenpeace and Break Free From Plastic organizations. The company disclosed this year that it uses 1.7 million tons of plastic annually to produce its plastic packaging.
A carbon footprint equal to Las Vegas: Bitcoin may be virtual currency - but it's harming the planet as much as major cities Bayer
The French multinational food and beverage company, whose brands include Activia and Evian, is the fourth largest source of plastic garbage in the world's oceans. Danone disclosed last year that it uses about 750,000 tons of plastic annually to package its products. Plastic is the most common trash found in the oceans and it wreaks havoc on marine ecosystems.
Syngenta
A global sample of ocean garbage collected last year found that the Illinois-based confectionary, food, and beverage company is the fifth most common source of plastic marine trash. Unlike other major plastic garbage producers on this list, the maker of Oreo cookies and Cadbury chocolate did not participate in recent U.N. program urging packaging producers to disclose the amount of plastic they use and to commit to more environmentally friendly practices in the future.
BASF
Agrochemical Companies
Corteva
Following its acquisition of seed maker Monsanto last year, the German multinational pharmaceutical and chemical company became the world's largest supplier of seeds and agricultural chemicals. These chemicals are a key source of nonpoint water pollution. Like the oil that leaks from vehicles, pesticides like the ones produced by Bayer wind up in rivers that carry agricultural runoff into the oceans.
ADAMA
The Switzerland-based, Chinese-owned agrochemical and seeds producer was the world's largest by sales in 2017 before Bayer took first position following its acquisition of Monsanto last year. As the second largest agrochemical and seeds producer, Syngenta is one of the largest suppliers of herbicides and pesticides used in agricultural activity. These chemicals wash into rivers that carry them into coastal ecosystems.
Pollution problems: The Pentagon emits more greenhouse gases than many countries, study says JBS
The largest chemical company in the world by revenue is also a leading producer of agricultural pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers. The German multinational company ranked third in agrochemical sales in 2017. Many of these chemicals wind up in the ocean through nonpoint water pollution, meaning there is no single specific source of contamination.
Tyson Foods
DowDuPont finalized on June 3 the separation of its agricultural business unit into a standalone company, Corteva Agrisciences. The move comes after the completion of a merger between Michigan-based The Dow Chemical Company and Delaware's E.I. du Pont de Nemours in 2017. The merger made DowDuPont the fourth largest seller of agrochemicals, the segment now under the Corteva name. Herbicides, pesticides ,and fertilizers pollute ocean water from rainwater runoff that makes its way to rivers, tributaries, and coastal wetlands.
Cargill
The Israel-based, Chinese-owned company is a leading producer of agricultural chemicals and the world's largest producer of generic pesticides. It was acquired by China National Chemical Group in 2011. ChemChina later bought Syngenta, putting two major agrochemical producers under one parent company. Herbicides, pesticides, and fertilizers pollute oceans through rainwater runoff into rivers.
Dairy Farmers of America
Meat and Dairy Corporations
Fonterra
The Brazilian multinational company is both the world's largest meat processor and the biggest single emitter of greenhouse gases in the global food industry, according to the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy and the international nonprofit GRAIN. The seller of meat, chicken, and pork products is responsible for more GHG emissions than the other top three leading meat and dairy companies combined. Carbon dioxide, the primary greenhouse gas, makes ocean water more acidic, which then causes great harm to marine ecosystems.
Scientists are puzzled: More than 260 dolphins found stranded along the Gulf Coast since February
Arkansas-based Tyson is the second largest meat processor and the second biggest emitter of greenhouse gases in the global food industry, making it, according to the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, one of the largest single sources of greenhouse gas emissions on the planet, when the energy used to produce animal feed and the agricultural chemicals used to grow it are considered. The primary greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide, makes seawater more acidic and harmful to ecosystems.

The Minnesota-based, privately held conglomerate is heavily involved in the production of livestock and grains for livestock nutrition. Cargill's operations are not limited to meat and poultry as the company's diverse businesses include agriculture products, food and beverages, beauty products and more. The company ranks as the third biggest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the global livestock industry, according to a report last year by the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy and the international nonprofit GRAIN.

The Kansas-based milk marketing cooperative is the fourth biggest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the meat and dairy industry if its livestock feed and agrochemicals operations are included. Much of the carbon dioxide from meat and dairy production winds up in the oceans, which makes them more acidic and harmful to sea life.
24/7 Wall Street is a USA TODAY content partner offering financial news and commentary. Its content is produced independently of USA TODAY.
New Zealand commands an enormous share of the market in global whole milk powder, and much of that is under the control of Fonterra. The company is the fifth largest source of GHG emissions when the energy used to produce feedstock is included.

Methodology

To determine the corporations behind the most ocean pollution, 24/7 Wall St. reviewed information about the different sources of pollution: plastic pollution; runoff from agricultural pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers; and greenhouse gas emissions.

For the primary company sources of plastics pollution, we used a 2018 study of plastic garbage collected in 42 countries and catalogued by Greenpeace and the Break Free From Plastics movement. For the primary sources of greenhouse gases - oil, gas, and coal companies responsible for the most greenhouse-gas emissions - we reviewed data from 2017's Carbon Majors Database from the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP), a UK-base charity encouraging carbon emissions reporting. The database considered data from 2015. A 2018 report from the international nonprofit organization GRAIN and the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP), a non-profit focused on environmental sustainability, provided the largest meat and dairy companies that release the most greenhouse gas emissions. We used a 2018 report from Agrow, an agribusiness intelligence company, to find the biggest producers of agricultural chemicals based on sales, which is how we determined the largest polluters in the industry.

The U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration provided background on so-called nonpoint source pollution, the ocean pollution that comes from runoff from vehicular oil leaks, farms, and ranches.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Coca-Cola, Pepsi highlight the 20 corporations producing the most ocean pollution

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
About 70% of the Earth's surface is covered by oceans. Not only were they the womb from which life likely emerged at least 3.5 billion years ago, but they act as the planet's thermostat, transferring heat from the tropics to higher latitudes and absorbing a substantial amount of the carbon dioxide that the world's plant life does not convert into oxygen through photosynthesis.

# data[].attributes.headline
Failure of Multinational Companies in Developing Countries in Sharing Environmental Responsibilities

# data[].attributes.subject
Failure of Multinational Companies in Developing Countries in Sharing Environmental Responsibilities

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Open figure viewer

Multinational companies whose importance has increased or improved depending on global capitalisation and travelling around the world without knowing borders have activities in developing countries due to suitable conditions (e.g. cheap workers costs, flexible legal arrangements). In this study, the precautions set forth to prevent environmental troubles, to obliterate or to minimise it, are the activities undertaken by the multinational companies which are considered. In the study, Turkey as a case country in which this subject was studied. Globalisation is the last step of economical sovereignty set up by means of multinational companies all over the world by capitalism which affects our age deeply. Unlimited capital stocks of capitalism and its economical development aim "whatever the result is" fastens the problems internationally as a result of not recognizing the social developments and justice, inequality, poverty and unsocializing people in developing countries. As a result of this, we're having environmental problems, the speed of nature's being consumed has been increased and there have been troubles almost every field of the social lives. However there is no one else who accepts the responsibilities of cost and social policies in the global economies in which international capital and global corporations decide on the rules; there is also no one else who accepts the responsibilities of environmental pollution and natural possessions' destruction as the result of the activities of international capital and global companies. The reason for this is that it is assumed that the government must take the responsibility "to protect and to development the environment". According to this idea, protecting and developing the environment has been supplying public use and public service. Thus public service is the duty of the state. Environmental rights subject, known as third generation rights or corporation rights, is to protect the environment and to development it. People who have the environmental rights are those actors who will make use of these rights and who will have the responsibilities of these rights. The people who will make use of these rights and who will have the responsibilities are generally the same actors. These are not only the people but also public and special institutions including communities; states and public; and the next generation. In this case, all the right owners who have the rights to live in a healthy and well balanced environment are obliged to protect and to development the environment at the same time, including the multinational companies. Every economic activity has an effect on the environment. Multinational companies have activities in the fields like gold mining, petrol, chemicals and food industry which have high potential effects on the environment in developing countries like Malaysia, Indonesia and Nigeria. On this point the question why multinational companies choose these countries should be answered. The answer doesn't only help to explain the issue's political sides but also it could show that the most dirtying foreign capital activities take place in developing countries. Why multinational companies have chosen these developing countries was studied under two titles. (1) Dirtying industries are choosing the countries which don't have severe legal arrangements, (2) The public opinion in developing countries is unconscious of the harms that economical activities give to the environment. If the first finding hadn't been true, the activities in most polluting sectors wouldn't have been directed to the countries where environmental laws are flexible/flexibly practised. Besides, the public opinion in these low educational level countries doesn't have enough knowledge about the environmental problems and importance of environment. This information also gives assurance to the multinational companies that they don't face with the opposing activities of the public there. Nevertheless, foreign capital is wanted by these countries to supply new technologies, to supply the political and economical support of the countries which export development and capital, to open their economy to other countries and to protect the environment of the country. But, in practice, these countries which are under pressure to pay their debts don't pay attention to the ecological defects of the activities let the multinational companies to settle in the country, import the wastes which supply currency entrance, to be stored in the national borders and to be reused without evaluation. Foreign capital entrance in gold mining fields is a small example about being served and defended as a gold opportunity to pay Turkey's foreign debts. As a result, multinational companies are unsuccessful in sharing environmental responsibilities in the developing countries. Multinational companies have been making use of the opportunities that the environment presents but they don't do their duties to environmental rights. The efforts by multinational companies have been improving as prevention of increasing the environmental standards. Related to this, in the countries mentioned and also in Turkey, where economical activity fields like ecological sensitivity isn't assured enough by law and isn't protected wholly is a kind of great danger for Turkey.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Failure of Multinational Companies in Developing Countries in Sharing Environmental Responsibilities: The Case of Turkey

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Multinational companies whose importance has increased or improved depending on global capitalisation and travelling around the world without knowing borders have activities in developing countries due to suitable conditions (e.g. cheap workers costs, flexible legal arrangements). In this study, the precautions set forth to prevent environmental troubles, to obliterate or to minimise it, are the activities undertaken by the multinational companies which are considered.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Apple has been complicit in its suppliers' violations of Chinese labor laws, according to a report from The Information. Suppliers have periodically filled their factories with temporary workers or "dispatch labor," violating a Chinese labor law requiring no more than 10 percent of a factory's workers be temporary employees.

Much like in the US, temporary employees in China receive lower pay and fewer benefits, and they've become increasingly common as interest in factory jobs has shrunk according to The Information's sources. The law limiting the use of dispatch labor came into effect in 2014, and that year Apple conducted a survey of its suppliers in China to determine how many already complied. The company found that among 362 factories, "nearly half were over the quota for temporary workers," according to a presentation The Information reviewed.

Apple took no major action against its suppliers for violating temp-worker labor laws

Despite that figure, not much had changed by 2016 and the end of a grace period for complying. Three former members of Apple's "supplier responsibility team" said that the company "took no major action against its suppliers for violating the temp-worker labor law out of concerns it would create costs, drain resources and delay product launches." If the claims are true, it's notable because Apple says it applies its supplier code of conduct policies equally across its supply chain, which should prevent these kinds of violations from happening.

New data Apple collected in 2018 shows the problem continued. The Information says that a Quanta factory manufacturing Apple Watches hired 5,000 temporary workers to bring its workforce to 18,000. That's around 27 percent temporary workers, above the 10 percent limit set by the law.

This isn't the first time labor laws have been violated on Apple's watch. In 2019, Apple actually admitted to at least a portion of this dispatch labor problem in its dealings with Foxconn. Foxconn had exceeded the 10 percent limit, despite previously agreeing multiple times to stop. And just last month another supplier, Pegatron, violated student labor laws and falsified its records to cover it up. Apple's reported response was to put the company on "probation," preventing it from conducting any new business with Apple until the problem was resolved.

Despite the Pegatron example, punishments have still not been broadly applied. Limits on temporary labor are an issue that all large tech companies manufacturing in China have likely been dealing with, but it's Apple's desire to "surprise and delight," along with maintaining aggressive production quotas, that have potentially worsened the problem. In a quote from the report, an unnamed Apple executive admits as much: "We are making it difficult for our suppliers to comply with this law as 10% dispatch is simply not enough to cope with the spikes in labor demand."

Apple is aware this is an issue, but until it's willing to step in and take bolder action, suppliers will take shortcuts to keep Apple's business.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Former employees say Apple stood by while suppliers violated Chinese labor laws

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Apple has been complicit in its supplier's violation of labor laws according to a report from The Information. As the job pool has shrunk, Apple supplier's have relied on less protected "dispatch labor" to meet production demands despite laws requiring temporary workers make up no more than 10 percent of a factory workforce.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
What this report finds: The COVID-19 pandemic has underscored both the importance of unions in giving workers a collective voice in the workplace and the urgent need to reform U.S. labor laws to arrest the erosion of those rights. During the crisis, unionized workers have been able to secure enhanced safety measures, additional premium pay, paid sick time, and a say in the terms of furloughs or work-share arrangements to save jobs. These pandemic-specific benefits build on the many ways unions help workers. Following are just a few of the benefits, according to the latest data:

Unionized workers (workers covered by a union contract) earn on average 11.2% more in wages than nonunionized peers (workers in the same industry and occupation with similar education and experience).

Black and Hispanic workers get a larger boost from unionization. Black workers represented by a union are paid 13.7% more than their nonunionized peers. Hispanic workers represented by unions are paid 20.1% more than their nonunionized peers.

Why it matters: A badly broken system governing collective bargaining has eroded unions and worker power more broadly, contributing to both the suffering during the pandemic and the extreme economic inequality exacerbated by the pandemic. In spite of efforts to push policy reforms, the U.S. entered the COVID-19 pandemic with a weak system of labor protections. As a result, working people, particularly low-wage workers-who are disproportionately women and workers of color-have largely borne the costs of the pandemic. While providing the "essential" services we rely on, many of these workers have been forced to work without protective gear; many have no access to paid sick leave; and when workers have spoken up about health and safety concerns, they have been fired.

What we can do about it: Policymakers must enact reforms that promote workers' collective power. While one package of needed reforms-the Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act-already has widespread political support and has passed the U.S. House of Representatives, there are a range of other practical policy reforms that should be a priority for the first 100 days of the administration in charge in 2021. These reforms build on existing legal frameworks and structures of worker power and could be put in place while we take on the larger task of considering new structures that promote workers' collective power. Leaders who are interested in using their power to halt and reverse the four-decades-old trend of rising inequality and near wage stagnation for most workers can't afford to wait.

Introduction

The COVID-19 pandemic has exposed a reality that U.S. workers have long confronted-U.S. labor law fails to protect working people. For decades, union leaders and workers' rights advocates have called on policymakers to reform a badly broken system, warning that the erosion of unions-and of worker power more broadly-was contributing to extreme economic inequality and threatening our overall democracy.

In spite of efforts to push policy reforms, the U.S. entered the COVID-19 pandemic with a weak system of labor protections, historically low rates of union density, and extreme economic inequality. As a result, working people, particularly low-wage workers-who are disproportionately women and workers of color-have largely borne the costs of the pandemic. While providing the "essential" services we rely on, these workers have been forced to work without protective gear, have no access to paid sick leave, and when workers have spoken up about health and safety concerns they have been fired. Clearly, a system that allows this dynamic must be reformed.

Reform must be responsive to the lessons we have learned from the challenges working people have faced during the pandemic. One of the main lessons is the need for and power of workers' collective voice in the workplace. Where workers have been able to act collectively and through their union, they have been able to secure enhanced safety measures, additional premium pay, and paid sick time. Unionized workers have had a voice in how their employers navigate the pandemic, including negotiating for terms of furloughs or work-share arrangements to save jobs.

Research shows the advantages workers in unions have over nonunionized workers. Workers with strong unions have been able to set industry standards for wages and benefits that help all workers, both union and nonunion (Rhinehart and McNicholas 2020). Never in recent history has this dynamic been more clear. Never has it been more important that all workers have a voice in the workplace and access to a union. Workers' lives and the health and safety of working families depends on their ability to have a say in how they do their jobs.

The right to a union and collective bargaining is also directly relevant to our urgent national conversation around racial inequality in its various forms, including economic disparities by race. Unions and collective bargaining help shrink the Black-white wage gap, due to the dual facts that Black workers are more likely than white workers to be represented by a union and Black workers who are in unions get a larger boost to wages from being in a union than white workers do (Farber et al. 2018). 1 This means that the decline of unionization has played a significant role in the expansion of the Black-white wage gap over the last four decades, and that an increase in unionization could help reverse those trends (Wilson and Rodgers 2016).

It is essential that policymakers prioritize reforms that promote workers' collective power. The political response to the economic and public health crises spurred by the COVID-19 pandemic has repeatedly failed to do so (McNicholas 2020). However, the pandemic will require sustained intervention. The depth of the economic crisis will necessitate additional legislative action. This provides an opportunity to workers, worker advocates, union leaders, and social justice advocates to demand that policymakers place the needs of working people ahead of corporate interests and deliver long overdue policy interventions and reforms that fulfill the promise made to U.S. workers nearly 100 years ago: the right to a union and collective bargaining. This crisis will continue to reshape our economy, our workforce, and our democracy. We must demand policies that create a more just economy and democracy.

This report examines the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on working people and our economy, discusses the importance of unions and workers' collective action in establishing an equitable economy and labor market, and recommends policy reforms to promote workers' collective power and grow union density. There is already widespread political support for many of these important reforms, including the Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act, which passed the House of Representatives early this year. And, while it is important to consider new structures that promote workers' collective power, this report focuses on practical policy reforms that build on existing legal frameworks and structures of worker power. These reforms should be a priority for the first 100 days of any new administration that is interested in using its power to halt and reverse the four-decades-old trend of rising inequality and near wage stagnation for most workers-a trend that has been exacerbated and worsened by the COVID-19 pandemic.

The coronavirus economic crisis is not close to over

The coronavirus recession came swiftly. In February, the unemployment rate was at a 50-year low of 3.5%. The unemployment rate began rising in March, and in April, as fear of the virus and social-distancing measures shut down nonessential parts of the economy, the unemployment rate shot up to 14.7%-with the Bureau of Labor Statistics noting that the unemployment rate would have been 19.5% in April if not for 7.5 million workers who were misclassified as "employed, not at work" instead of being classified as temporarily unemployed (BLS 2020). 2

As the economy began reopening in May, some workers who had been temporarily laid off in March and April began to be rehired, but as of July-as the virus surged in part because reopening was not accompanied by robust workplace safety and public health measures-progress had slowed dramatically. Given that the labor market remains 12.9 million jobs below where it was before the virus hit and the unemployment rate remains higher than it ever was during the Great Recession, a dramatically slowing recovery means the U.S. labor market is likely to be very weak for an extended period (Gould 2020b).

The danger of extended labor market weakness is particularly acute if Congress does not provide substantial additional fiscal aid (Bivens 2020; Bivens and Cooper 2020). The Congressional Budget Office predicts that if Congress does nothing, the unemployment rate will average 10.5% in the fourth quarter of this year, 8.4% in 2021, and over 7% in 2022-still more than twice where it was before the recession hit (CBO 2020). Without significant intervention by Congress, we are going to face a sustained period of economic weakness that will do lasting harm to the economy and the people who make up the economy, and will greatly exacerbate existing inequalities.

Coronavirus impacts disproportionately affect Black and Hispanic workers

The challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic have been felt broadly, but not equally. Low-wage workers have experienced vastly greater job loss due to the fact that low-wage jobs are concentrated in sectors that are getting hit particularly hard because they involve more social contact (such as restaurants and bars, hotels, personal services, events, and brick-and-mortar retail). Further, due to racial and ethnic differences in labor market outcomes caused by occupational segregation, discrimination, and other disparities rooted in systemic racism, Black, Latinx, and Asian American/Pacific Islander (AAPI) communities have experienced much greater job loss. While white non-Hispanic workers saw a peak unemployment rate of 12.8%, Black non-Hispanic workers saw a peak unemployment rate of 16.7%, Hispanic workers saw an unemployment rate of 18.5%, and AAPI workers saw an unemployment rate of 15.0%. This recession also saw greater job loss among women than among men, and, at the intersection of race and gender, unemployment rates peaked at incredibly high rates for women of color: 17.3% for Black non-Hispanic women, 20.5% for Hispanic women, and 16.1% for AAPI women. 3

While a common conception may be that "everyone is working from home," survey data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics find that in fact fewer than 30% of workers can work from home (BLS-ATUS 2019). 4 Black and Hispanic workers are even less likely to have the opportunity to telework. Less than one in five Black workers (19.7%) and only one in six Hispanic workers (16.2%) can telework (Gould and Shierholz 2020).

Workers who can't work from home but whose jobs have survived the pandemic include the millions of workers who are on the job providing "essential" services. The majority of essential workers are employed in health care; food and agriculture; and the industrial, commercial, and residential facilities and services industry (such as construction workers, building cleaning services workers, and maintenance workers). Women and workers of color make up the majority of all workers in the top three "essential" industries (McNicholas and Poydock 2020a). 5

In spite of their critical role in providing necessary services, these workers have been working without access to fundamental protections like personal protective equipment or paid sick leave. For instance, people of color make up half of essential workers in food and agriculture, which has the lowest median hourly wage, at $13.12, of all essential work (McNicholas and Poydock 2020a). 6 Low-wage workers in general are roughly half as likely as high-wage workers to have access to paid sick leave-less than half (47%) of low-wage workers have access to paid sick days, compared with 90% of high-wage workers (Gould 2020a). 7 For Black workers, lack of access to paid sick time is compounded by lower rates of health insurance coverage. Black workers are 60% more likely to be uninsured than white workers (Wilson and Gould 2020).

While the majority of workers who are currently working onsite at their workplaces believe they face considerable risk of COVID-19 infection, Black and Hispanic workers are more likely to fear risks from work than are white workers. Results from one survey indicate that Black essential workers are nearly twice as likely as white essential workers to express concern about infection risk (Hertel-Fernandez et al. 2020). 8 In fact, Black workers make up one in six of all front-line industry workers, putting them and their family members at greater risk of contracting and spreading COVID-19 (Wilson and Gould 2020). 9

Unions have played an integral role in securing benefits for workers during the pandemic

The Trump administration's failure to provide essential workers with basic protections during the coronavirus pandemic has underscored the importance of unions (McNicholas and Poydock 2020b). With a union, workers have negotiated additional pay, 10 health and safety measures, 11 paid sick leave, 12 and job preservation. 13 Furthermore, unionized workers have felt more secure speaking out about hazards (Jamieson 2020).

Without unions, many workers are forced to work without personal protective equipment or access to paid leave or premium pay. And when nonunion workers have advocated for health and safety protections or wage increases, they have often been retaliated against or even fired for doing so (Paul 2020; Davenport, Bhattarai, and McGregor 2020; Kruzel 2020; Eidelson 2020; Miller 2020). The lack of these basic protections has led to thousands of essential workers becoming infected with the coronavirus, and many are dying as a result (Bhattarai 2020; Kaplan and Kent 2020; Jewett, Bailey, and Renwick 2020).

How unions help working people broadly

While the coronavirus pandemic has underscored the importance of unions for working people, the benefits of union membership pre-date the pandemic and extend to a broad swath of the U.S. workforce. The following findings show just how diverse the unionized workforce is and how the union-led wage and safety benefits help advance the goal of a fair and prosperous economy. 14 Unless otherwise noted, the data findings that follow are for both private- and public-sector workers and derive from our analysis of Current Population Survey microdata pooled from 2015-2019 (EPI 2020), and "union workers" refers to workers covered by a union contract.

Who are today's union workers?

While historically union members had been predominately white men, today's union workers are a diverse group.

More than one in nine workers (16.4 million) are covered by a union contract (Shierholz 2020).

Almost two-thirds (65.2%) of workers covered by a union contract are women and/or people of color. Almost half (46.2%) are women. More than a third (36.1%) are Black, Hispanic, Asian American/Pacific Islander, or other people of color.

Black workers are the major racial/ethnic group most likely to be represented by unions: 13.5% of Black workers are covered by a contract, compared with 12.2% of white workers, 10.2% of Hispanic workers, and 10.5% of AAPI workers.

More than half (54.7%) of workers covered by a union contract have an associate degree or more education.

More than two out of five (43.1%) have a bachelor's degree or more education.

Union workers hail from a variety of sectors, but the biggest numbers are found in the public sector (7.9 million) and in private-sector industries like education and health services (2.1 million), manufacturing (1.4 million), transportation and utilities (1.2 million), construction (1.1 million), and wholesale and retail trade (917,000).

Since industries vary in size, industries with the highest numbers of union workers aren't always the industries with the highest union coverage rate. The highest shares of workers covered by a union contract (the "union coverage rate") are public-sector workers (37.8%) and private-sector workers in the transportation and utilities (19.4%), construction (14.1%), information (10.4%), manufacturing (9.8%), and educational and health services (9.4%) industries.

Unions raise wages for both union and nonunion workers

On average, a worker covered by a union contract earns 11.2% more in wages than a peer with similar education, occupation, and experience in a nonunionized workplace in the same industry; this wage advantage is known as the "union wage premium." 16 And unions don't just help union workers-they help all of us. When union density is high, nonunion workers benefit, because unions effectively set broader standards-including higher wages, as noted by Rosenfeld, Denice, and Laird (2016)-that nonunion employers must meet in order to attract and retain the workers they need (and to avoid facing a union organizing drive themselves).

The combination of the direct effect of unions on union members and this "spillover" effect to nonunion workers means unions are crucial in raising wages for working people and reducing income inequality. Research shows that deunionization accounts for a sizable share of the growth in inequality between typical (median) workers and workers at the high end of the wage distribution in recent decades-on the order of 13-20% for women and 33-37% for men. 17

Unions help raise wages for women and lessen racial wage gaps

Unions help raise women's pay. Hourly wages for women represented by a union are 5.8% higher on average than for nonunionized women with comparable characteristics. Rigorous research shows that unions reduce gender wage gaps within given employers: For example, Biasi and Sarsons (2020) show that the expiration of teacher collective bargaining agreements led to a gender gap in wages between male and female teachers with similar credentials.

Unions also help close wage gaps for Black and Hispanic workers. Since collective bargaining lifts wages of Black and Hispanic workers closer to those of their white counterparts, Black and Hispanic workers get a larger boost from unionization. White workers represented by union are paid "just" 8.7% more than their nonunionized peers who are white, but Black workers represented by union are paid 13.7% more than their nonunionized peers who are Black, and Hispanic workers represented by unions are paid 20.1% more than their nonunionized peers who are Hispanic.

Unions provide workers with better benefits, including paid leave and health care

Union workers are more likely to be covered by employer-provided health insurance. More than nine in 10 workers covered by a union contract (94%) have access to employer-sponsored health benefits, compared with just 68% of nonunion workers. Further, union employers contribute more to their employee's health care benefits. Union employers pay 86% of workers' health care premiums while nonunion employers pay 79% of their workers' health care premiums (BLS-EB 2019a).

Union workers also have greater access to paid sick days. Nine in 10 workers covered by a union contract (91%) have access to paid sick days, compared with 73% of nonunion workers. Almost all union workers in state and local government (97%) have paid sick days, compared with 86% of their nonunion peers. In the private sector, 86% of union workers have paid sick days compared with 72% of their nonunion peers (BLS-EB 2019b).

If workers want unions and they are critical to a just economy-why don't we have them?

The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) provides most private-sector workers in the United States with the right to unionize and collectively bargain. However, in the 85 years since the law was enacted, those rights have become increasingly inaccessible to the overwhelming majority of the U.S. workforce. And only 25 states and the District of Columbia have laws that comprehensively protect public-sector workers' right to form and join unions (see map of state laws in the policy section of this report). 18 In 2019, only 7.1% of private-sector workers were represented by a union, while 37.2% of public-sector workers were (Shierholz 2020). These shares stand in stark contrast to the nearly half (48%) of all nonunion workers who say they would vote for a union if given the opportunity-a 50% higher share than when a similar survey was taken in 1995 (Kochan et al. 2018). 19

If so many workers want union representation, why don't they have it? If workers want stronger COVID-19 protections, better wages and benefits, and a voice on the job, why don't they just form a union at their workplace? The fact is that our current labor law makes it very difficult for workers to win union representation (McNicholas et al. 2019). Workers face multiple hurdles when they try to organize (Lafer and Loustaunau 2020.) Some of the fundamental weaknesses and shortcomings of current labor law have been exposed as essential workers required to work during the COVID-19 pandemic have tried to organize and raise questions about their working conditions. Their experiences illustrate the weaknesses in current law.

Protections for workers who are organizing are weak

When workers at an Amazon warehouse in New York City joined together and walked out to protest safety conditions, Amazon fired Chris Smalls, one of the lead organizers (Ivanova 2020a). His case is still being investigated by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) (the presidentially appointed board that supervises union representation elections governed by the NLRA) and the New York State Attorney General.

Under current law, Smalls has no right to bring a lawsuit against the employer to assert his rights-he is entirely dependent on the Trump NLRB and its general counsel to pursue his case for unlawful termination. The general counsel is under no time deadlines or obligation to prioritize Smalls's case. If the company is found to have illegally fired Smalls, it is simply required to offer him his job back, minus the wages he earned or could have earned in the meantime. There are no damages or penalties. In other words, Amazon is no worse off financially for illegally firing Smalls, but the company will have succeeded in removing a union activist from the workplace and creating fear among Smalls's co-workers.

Employers are charged with illegally firing union activists in nearly 20% of all NLRB election campaigns (McNicholas et al. 2019). Employers know illegal firings are effective in derailing campaigns and that they will face no real consequences. (Firing workers for trying to organize a union is one of many illegal tactics U.S. employers have proven willing to use to thwart worker collective action because the penalties are so minimal, as detailed in McNicholas et al. 2019.)

Elections are slowed down while employers run anti-union campaigns

Earlier this year, more than 1,600 nurses at Mission Hospital in Asheville, North Carolina, tried to get an NLRB election at their workplace so that they could bargain collectively with the hospital over safety and other issues (Gordon 2020). The nurses filed a petition with the NLRB that included the requisite showing of support and got a hearing date. Then the Trump NLRB unilaterally decided to stop holding elections and canceled the hearing. After a lengthy process, during which the employer twice sought an extension for filing its papers and postponement of the hearing date, the NLRB scheduled a telephonic hearing to take place six weeks after the union had initially filed its representation petition (Cotiaux 2020a).

As the employer was claiming that the COVID crisis required indefinite postponement of the representation process, it ran an anti-union campaign that included sending anti-union communications to nurses and forcing them to attend mandatory meetings to hear the employer's anti-union message. (The use of anti-union propaganda and such "captive audience meetings" are but two of the many legal intimidation tactics used by employers-and the union-busting consultants they hire-to effectively scare workers out of exercising their right to collective bargaining, as detailed in Lafer and Loustaunau 2020.)

The NLRB finally set an election date, with voting starting on August 18-months after the nurses filed their petition (Cotiaux 2020b). Meanwhile, the employer continues to barrage the nurses with anti-union messages, having their anti-union consultants roam the halls, sometimes without masks, and decamp in nurses' break rooms to lobby against the union. Under current law, the union is not able to hold meetings with nurses at the hospital to talk about the benefits of unionization, so nurses are deprived of the opportunity to hear from both sides at the workplace.

Union-busters are everywhere

Workers at Google staged a national walkout in 2019 to protest the company's handling of sexual harassment. Earlier this year, workers petitioned Google to not bid on work for the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE). Google workers have raised questions about other company practices. Google responded by firing several of the activists and by hiring a notorious union-avoidance consultant-one of the hundreds of companies that advise companies on how to stop union organizing drives (Scheiber and Wakabayashi 2020; Lafer and Loustaunau 2020).

Employers are evading responsibility

Workers have gone on strike at dozens of McDonald's restaurants over safety concerns, inadequate protections against sexual harassment, and other issues over the last eight years. 20 Workers have been stymied in their efforts to get the company's safety practices and other labor policies addressed corporatewide, because McDonald's claims it is not their employer-that the workers are employed only by a particular franchise, and thus that McDonald's does not have any shared liability for wage and hour violations (Selyukh 2019). The Trump NLRB has weakened the test for determining whether two employers are "joint employers" who share that liability. And in a recent rulemaking, the Trump NLRB concluded that control over health and safety issues is not an automatic part of the joint-employer analysis (NLRB 2020).

Policy solutions for strengthening workers' bargaining rights

Bold and comprehensive action is needed to restore and strengthen workers' ability to join with their co-workers to form unions and build collective power to bargain with their employers over safety practices and other important workplace issues. What follows is a partial list of possible reforms, with an emphasis on steps Congress can take to strengthen federal law governing private-sector bargaining rights.

1. Pass the PRO Act

The Protecting the Right to Organize Act (the PRO Act), H.R. 2474, passed the U.S. House of Representatives on February 6, 2020, by a bipartisan vote of 224-194. A companion bill in the United States Senate, S. 1306, has 42 co-sponsors. Senate action on the PRO Act is being blocked by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. The PRO Act would significantly strengthen the ability of workers in the private sector to form unions and engage in collective bargaining by addressing several of the major obstacles that currently stand in workers' way. Following are descriptions of some of the PRO Act's key provisions, which are outlined in Table 1:

The PRO Act establishes stiff penalties, including personal liability for corporate officials in appropriate cases, for violations of the NLRA.

It strengthens remedies when companies illegally fire or retaliate against workers for trying to form a union and requires the NLRB to seek preliminary reinstatement of fired workers while their cases are pending.

It bans "captive audience" meetings in which employers force workers to listen to the employer's anti-union messages.

It establishes a process for achieving an initial collective bargaining agreement when workers first organize.

It overrides state "right to work" laws that ban "fair share" agreements by explicitly allowing employers and unions to agree to fair share arrangements whereby all workers covered by a collective bargaining agreement share in the union's costs of negotiating and enforcing the agreement, even if some of those workers are not union members paying union dues. (In "right to work" states, fair share arrangements are banned and workers can get the benefit of union representation without contributing their fair share.)

The PRO Act has strong support and is ready for action. It should be a top priority for the administration and new Congress in January 2021.

The Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act expands workers' rights on the job : Examples of loopholes in current labor law and how the PRO Act closes them

Deficiency in the National Labor Relations Act

Policy reform under the PRO Act

Employers drag out the election process through litigation at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).

Workers and the NLRB set union election procedures. The employer is not involved.

Employers have free rein to hold captive audience meetings where they deliver anti-union messages without an opportunity for the union to respond.

Employers are prohibited from forcing workers to attend captive audience meetings.

Workers wait months and even years to be reinstated or receive back pay after they were unlawfully discharged by their employer for engaging in activities protected under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).

The NLRB is required to go to court and get an injunction to immediately reinstate workers if the NLRB believes the employer has illegally retaliated against workers for union activity.

Employers who violate workers' rights under the NLRA face no civil penalties.

Employers who commit violations under the NLRA face civil penalties, including individual liability for responsible corporate officials.

Workers are prohibited from bringing civil lawsuits against their employer for violating their NLRA rights.

Workers gain a private right to civil action.

Employers are allowed to force workers to sign arbitration agreements in which they waive the right to collective or class action litigation.

Collective and class action waivers are banned.

Employers are allowed to misclassify workers as independent contractors without violating the NLRA.

Employers must follow an "ABC" test to determine employee status and employee misclassification is a violation under the NLRA.

Multiple employers are able to dictate workers' terms of employment while evading collective bargaining with employees.

Employers are less able to evade their responsibilities because the PRO Act codifies a strong joint-employer standard (a defined set of criteria ensuring that employers who dictate workers' terms of employment are considered joint employers and thus responsible for workplace protections).

States may have "Right-to-work" laws that prohibit employers and unions from negotiating contracts that require dues or "fair share" fees from all represented workers.

States must allow private employers and unions to enter into "fair share" agreements.

Employers have the ability to drag out the process of bargaining over a first collective bargaining agreement.

Employers must follow a process for reaching a first agreement when workers organize, a process that uses mediation and then, if necessary, binding arbitration, to enable the parties to reach a first agreement.

Workers face limits on their fundamental right to strike.

Workers gain their full fundamental right to strike because the PRO Act removes prohibitions on secondary strikes, prohibits employers from permanently replacing striking workers, and bans the use of proactive lockouts by employers in which employers lock out employees who want to keep working.

Source: Authors' analysis of current labor law and the Protecting the Right to Organize Act of 2019, H.R. 2474, 116th Cong. (2019).

2. Pass the Public Service Freedom to Negotiate Act and the Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act

Pass these two acts so that all public-sector workers have the ability to form unions and engage in collective bargaining. Currently more than half of the states lack comprehensive collective bargaining laws for public-service workers like teachers. Public-service workers deserve the right to join together in unions to fight for stronger safety and health protections, better pay, and better working conditions.

Status of collective bargaining rights for state and local public workers, by state

While federal laws provide most private-sector workers and federal government workers with the right to unionize and bargain collectively, there is as of yet no federal law guaranteeing that right for state and local government workers like teachers. A patchwork of state laws provides inconsistent rights for these public workers.

Source: American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees analysis, August 2020.

3. Reaffirm in statutory language that the purpose of labor law is to promote and encourage organizing and collective bargaining

Reaffirm in statutory language that the purpose of labor law is to promote and encourage organizing and collective bargaining and that the NLRB's actions must further this goal. Promoting and encouraging organizing and collective bargaining was the purpose and goal of the original Wagner Act (the NLRA). However, after the passage of the Taft-Hartley Act, employers have argued that the law is not pro-union but is neutral.

The statutory language must be strengthened to provide that NLRB actions that do not meet the statutory standard of promoting organizing and collective bargaining could be invalidated by a reviewing court as contrary to the governing law under the Administrative Procedures Act. This approach is similar to that taken under the Occupational Safety and Health Act, which states that health standards must provide the maximum level of protection to workers that is technologically feasible, and standards that fall short of this level of protection can be invalidated by the courts. 21

4. Amend the NLRA to expand access for workers and union organizers to discuss unionization at the workplace

Workers need a fair chance to hear from union representatives about the benefits of unionization, including the ways in which unions help strengthen health and safety protections at the workplace. Currently, employers are able to deliver their anti-union messages at the workplace and on work time, because the employer controls the workplace and directs how work time is spent. Employers use this advantage to bombard workers with anti-union messages in their paychecks, in one-on-one meetings with their supervisors, and in employer anti-union "captive-audience" meetings that workers are required to attend or face discipline or discharge. Nine out of 10 employers require workers to attend captive-audience meetings during organizing campaigns (Bronfenbrenner 2009).

Workers have only a limited ability to hear from union supporters at the workplace, and their access has been further curtailed by the Trump NLRB, which has restricted the ability of workers and organizers to organize at their workplace (McNicholas et al. 2019; Fawaz 2020). This imbalance undermines the ability of workers to organize together.

The law should be amended to require employers to grant reasonable access to union organizers, off-duty employees, and off-duty contractor employees to nonworking areas to talk with workers on their nonworking time. The law should also make clear that workers may use their employer's internal e-mail system for union-related messages. In addition, workers who have not yet organized a union should be able to designate a union representative as their representative during an OSHA inspection and related proceedings.

The COVID-19 crisis shows that workers with union representation have fared better than nonunion workers in terms of advocating for safety equipment and protocols. Workers should not have to go through the formal NLRB election process to gain the benefit of union advocacy and expertise when it comes to their health and safety on the job.

5. Amend the NLRA to reestablish voluntary recognition of unions when workers choose it, and promote electronic voting in NLRB elections

The NLRB election process gives employers too many opportunities to interfere with workers' ability to organize. Passage of the PRO Act will significantly improve the situation, but experience during the COVID-19 pandemic shows that further reforms are needed. Specifically, employers should be required to recognize and bargain with a union if a majority of workers indicate their support for the union as their representative. The law should not allow employers to determine whether workers have a formal election-that choice should be left up to workers, not the employer.

The additional obstacles placed in the way of NLRB elections during the COVID-19 crisis-cancellation of elections, the NLRB's inability to hold remote hearings, allowing mail ballot elections only if employers agree, and delays in the election process during which employers run their anti-union campaigns-all bolster the need to require employers to recognize unions based on a showing of majority support. This method of forming unions has been recognized and used by employers in the United States for decades. The law should allow workers to choose union representation through this method and require employers to respect their workers' choice. In addition, the NLRB should be directed to allow electronic voting in representation elections. Electronic voting has been used by the National Mediation Board for years, and it should be allowed and encouraged-particularly given the health risks associated with large gatherings (Muller 2020).

6. Amend the NLRA to let workers determine the bargaining unit and bargaining structure

When workers organize, they determine the group of workers-called the "bargaining unit"-that will be the group covered by the organizing and collective bargaining agreement, and they describe the bargaining unit in their petition to the NLRB. Employers try to gerrymander the bargaining unit by adding workers they think will vote against the union or removing those who support representation. Here again, it should be workers' choice, and not up to the employer, to determine the group that is organizing and bargaining.

As EPI has previously recommended, the law should make clear that the petitioning union's description of the bargaining unit is determinative, unless the employer can make a compelling case as to why the proposed unit is unworkable (Rhinehart and McNicholas 2020). Similarly, workers should be able to designate a multi-employer bargaining arrangement, and their proposed arrangement should be certified unless the employer can make a compelling case as to why its participation in a multi-employer bargaining unit is unworkable (Rhinehart and McNicholas 2020).

7. Enact federal and state measures that strengthen the right to refuse hazardous work and continue eligibility for UI benefits for workers refusing unsafe work

At the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, essential workers in health care, food service, warehouses, grocery stores, meatpacking plants, and other settings raised concerns about the risk of workplace exposure to COVID-19 and the lack of personal protective equipment and other safety protections. Too often, these workers were fired or faced other retaliation for raising these concerns (Hiltzik 2020; Kruzel 2020; Davenport, Bhattarai, and McGregor 2020). In other places, workers were called back to work at workplaces that did not have sufficient health and safety protections and were faced with the prospect of working at an unsafe job and risking contracting a deadly disease, or refusing to work and risking losing their unemployment benefits.

Workers should not be faced with choosing between their health and their livelihood. The law must be strengthened to explicitly protect workers who refuse to perform hazardous work from being fired or retaliated against. These protections exist to some extent now under the Occupational Safety and Health Act and the NLRA, but the protections are weak and the enforcement is up to the government agency. Also, workers who refuse to work because of unsafe working conditions that the employer fails to address should not be disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits: States should be required to consider the refusal to perform unsafe work as "good cause" to not work, so that unemployment benefits continue (Berkowitz and Sonn 2020). And because strikes have shown themselves to be effective and often necessary to force action on safety and health, states should be required to provide unemployment insurance for strikers (Block and Sachs 2020). 22

8. Amend the NLRA to extend collective bargaining rights to agricultural, domestic, and student workers

Millions of agricultural workers and domestic workers other than those employed by private agencies are excluded from the NLRA's coverage. And the Trump NLRB has proposed to strip millions of student workers of their collective bargaining rights (McNicholas, Poydock, and Rhinehart 2019). Yet the COVID-19 crisis has shown how vulnerable these workers are to occupational exposure to the coronavirus-in the fields, in people's homes, and at colleges and universities. The NLRA should be amended to expand coverage to agricultural, domestic, and student workers so these workers can form unions and fight for health and safety protections on the job.

9. Strengthen and expand workers' speech rights in the law

The COVID-19 crisis has shown that when it comes to health and safety and many other issues, there is no meaningful distinction between a workplace issue and a public issue, or a workplace issue and a consumer issue (see "Unions have played an integral role in securing benefits for workers during the pandemic" section earlier). Workers who have spoken out about the lack of protections at grocery stores have been raising issues of importance to both workers and consumers who shop at these stores. Workers who have been raising concerns about a lack of protective equipment in health care settings have been concerned about their own safety and also that of patients and family members visiting patients. Meatpacking workers who have raised concerns about a lack of protections at their plants have raised issues that are also of concern to their communities, because workers who contract COVID-19 on the job carry the disease home with them to their communities.

Similarly, when workers speak out about corporate practices-such as the Google workers who petitioned their employer about contracting with ICE, or employees urging stronger action by Google on climate change (Wong 2019)-they are using their voice as workers to try to bring about better corporate practices. Workers should not face retaliation for speaking out about these workplace and public issues, nor should they be punished for the equivalent of "taking a knee" to protest police violence or for demonstrating their support for Black Lives Matter at work-but they have (Ivanova 2020b; Jagannathan 2020; Pappas 2020). The NLRA should protect workers against retaliation for speaking out on their own and their co-workers' behalf on workplace issues, corporate issues, and societal issues and should not artificially constrain workers' speech rights to a narrow set of issues. 23

10. Amend the NLRA to establish remedies when employers stall bargaining

Workers form unions because they want to bargain with their employers and reach agreement about issues that matter to them-issues like health and safety, wages, protections against sexual harassment, and dignity on the job. Yet too often workers' goals are frustrated because employers drag out the bargaining process and refuse to reach agreement.

The PRO Act establishes an important mediation and arbitration process for ensuring that newly organized workers reach a first agreement. This reform should be expanded to include "make-whole" remedies for workers when employers drag their feet and fail to bargain in good faith-remedies like the wages and benefits workers would have received if the employer had not dragged out the bargaining process. These remedies were once regularly issued by the NLRB but the NLRB stopped doing so because reviewing courts viewed them as beyond the NLRB's statutory authority. 24 Congress should establish that the NLRB has the authority to provide this make-whole remedy and should direct the NLRB to make this remedy its standard practice.

11. Enact NLRA provisions that extend existing collective bargaining agreements

Relatedly, workers should not need to start from scratch when bargaining a contract with a newly organized employer. Where a union has a significant presence at an employer, in an industry, or in a geographic area, the law should provide a process for the union to extend the contract standards for wages and benefits that the union has achieved through bargaining with these employers to newly organized groups. The PRO Act establishes a mediation and arbitration process for achieving initial collective bargaining agreements for newly organized workers. That process should default to the contract standards the union has been able to achieve with other employers in the industry or area, or such higher standards as the union demonstrates are appropriate (Rhinehart and McNicholas 2020).

12. Amend the NLRA to make clear that health and safety are essential terms of employment when determining joint-employer status

Health and safety is consistently cited as one of the most important issues to working people, and the COVID-19 crisis has only elevated its importance. Unions routinely bargain with employers over health and safety protections, and collective bargaining gives workers a stronger voice for addressing these critical issues than they would have individually. Yet, inexplicably, the Trump NLRB has determined that health and safety is not an "essential" term of employment, such that it is not automatically considered when reviewing whether two employers are joint employers with control over "essential" terms of employment (NLRB 2020). This artificially narrows the joint-employer inquiry and excludes an issue of extreme importance to working people (Becker and Berner 2020). Legislation should make clear that health and safety is an essential term of employment.

Endnotes

1. The phenomenon of unions narrowing the Black-white wage gap isn't new. Starting in the mid-1940s, Black workers began to be more likely to be in unions and to have a larger union premium than white workers.

2. See question 14 in the BLS's "Frequently Asked Questions: The Impact of the Coronavirus (COVID-19) Pandemic on The Employment Situation for April 2020" (BLS 2020) for the discussion of misclassified workers.

3. These numbers are based on EPI's analysis of Current Population Survey microdata (EPI 2020) and will not match those published by BLS because we use mutually exclusive racial and ethnic categories: for instance, white non-Hispanic and Black non-Hispanic. Further, these numbers are not seasonally adjusted. Note that the Black unemployment rate, the Black women's unemployment rate, the AAPI unemployment rate, and the AAPI women's unemployment rate peaked in May. The other unemployment rates listed in this paragraph, and the overall unemployment rate, peaked in April.

4. This is roughly consistent with Dingel and Neiman 2020, which finds that 37% of jobs in the U.S. can be performed entirely at home.

5. Essential workers in this data set include workers in food and agriculture; emergency services; transportation, warehouse, and delivery; industrial, commercial, residential facilities and services; health care; government and community-based services; communications and IT; financial sector; energy sector; water and wastewater management; chemical sector; and critical manufacturing. The 12 "essential" industries were identified by using executive orders from California and Maryland as models (State of California 2020; Maryland Office of Legal Counsel 2020).

6. See Table 3 in McNicholas and Poydock 2020a.

7. Here, low-wage workers are defined as those in the bottom 25% of wage earners and high-wage workers are defined as those in the top 25%.

8. Essential workers in this data set include workers in social services, health care, protective services, food service, custodial/building maintenance, personal care, sales, installation and repair, and transportation.

9. Front-line industries in this data set include grocery, convenience, and drugstore workers; public transit workers; trucking, warehouse, and postal service workers; building cleaning service workers; health care workers; and child care and social services workers.

10. The United Food and Commercial Workers secured increased pay and benefits for workers in more than a dozen meatpacking and food-processing companies. The commitments include $2 per hour premium pay for workers at Campbell's Soup, a $1,500 bonus for workers at Smucker Foods, and a 15% pay increase for workers at Danone North America. In addition, the United Food and Commercial Workers won premium pay for thousands of workers at Kroger, Giant, Safeway, and Shoppers. As of July 2020, all stores had eliminated premium pay for front-line workers. See UFCW 2020 and UFCW Local 400 2020.

11. The United Auto Workers persuaded General Motors, Ford, and Fiat Chrysler to shut down operations for two weeks to slow the spread of the virus, and they negotiated with the companies to provide all workers with protective gear, including masks. See UAW 2020 and Engdahl 2020.

12. The Communications Workers of America secured additional paid sick and family leave for unionized Verizon workers. The agreement includes 26 weeks of paid sick leave for individuals diagnosed with COVID-19 and eight weeks of paid leave for those caring for an individual medically diagnosed with COVID-19. See CWA 2020.

13. The Teamsters reached an agreement with DHL Express that relaxes rules pertaining to vacation use by workers for the shipping company if shipping volumes drop. The letter of agreement aims to minimize any potential layoffs that may result from COVID-19. See Teamsters 2020.

14. The text and data in the following sections are adapted and updated from How Today's Unions Help Working People (Bivens et al. 2017).

15. In this analysis, the unionized public-sector workforce (7.9 million workers, constituting 37.8% of all public-sector workers) includes workers in all industries in the public sector. So, for example, education and health services workers who work in the public sector are included in this tally, not in the private-sector education and health services industries tallies.

16. The union wage premium analysis uses individual-level data from EPI microdata extracts of the 2015-2019 Current Population Survey Outgoing Rotation Groups (EPI 2020). Specifically, we report the coefficient on union status from a regression of the log of the hourly wage on union status and a quintic polynomial in age (used as a measure of experience), and dummies for race and ethnicity, education, citizenship, major industry, major occupation, state, and year. We exclude observations with imputed wages because the imputation process does not take union status into account and therefore biases the union premium toward zero. This analysis does not account for nonwage benefits.

17. The estimates of 13% for women and 37% for men are from authors' analysis of data from Fortin, Lemieux, and Lloyd 2019. The estimates of 20% for women and 33% for men are from Western and Rosenfeld 2011. Western and Rosenfeld estimate that "deunionization explains a fifth of the inequality increase for women and a third for men."

18. Federal law gives federal employees the right to unionize and bargain.

19. As Kochan et al. note, "The survey excluded senior managers, owners, or family members of owners," thus "it contains a higher percentage of low income workers than in the national population."

20. McDonald's workers in New York City were among the fast-food workers who walked off the job in 2012 to demand a $15 hourly wage and the right to form a union, which was the genesis of the now-global First for $15 movement. See Fight for $15 2020.

21. See 29 USC 656(b)(5) (directing OSHA to set the standard that "most adequately assures, to the extent feasible, on the basis of the best available evidence, that no employee will suffer material impairment of health or functional capacity").

22. Workers who are locked out by their employers should also be eligible for unemployment benefits. See Block and Sachs 2020.

23. The state of Virginia recently adopted emergency regulations to protect workers from COVID-19 exposure, including provisions banning retaliation against workers for raising safety concerns to the public. See VA DOLI 2020.

24. Ex-Cell-O, 185 NLRB 107 (1970), aff'd in relevant part, 449 F.2d 1058 (D.C. Cir).

References

Becker, Craig, and Nicole Berner. 2020. " Request for Reconsideration of, and Postponement of, the Joint Employer Rule." Letter submitted on the behalf of AFL-CIO and SEIU to National Labor Relations Board Chairman John F. Ring. Law 360, April 20, 2020.

Berkowitz, Deborah, and Paul K. Sonn. 2020. Protecting Worker Safety & Health in the COVID Crisis: A State & Local Model Policy Response. National Employment Law Project, April 2020.

Bhattarai, Abha. 2020. " 'It Feels Like a War Zone': As More of Them Die, Grocery Workers Increasingly Fear Showing Up at Work." Washington Post, April 12, 2020.

Biasi, Barbara, and Heather Sarsons. 2020. " Flexible Wages, Bargaining, and the Gender Gap " (working paper). June 2020.

Bivens, Josh. 2020. " Cutting Off the $600 Boost to Unemployment Benefits Would Be Both Cruel and Bad Economics." Working Economics Blog (Economic Policy Institute), June 26, 2020.

Bivens, Josh, and David Cooper. 2020. " Without Federal Aid to State and Local Governments, 5.3 Million Workers Will Likely Lose Their Jobs by the End of 2021." Working Economics Blog (Economic Policy Institute), June 10, 2020.

Bivens, Josh, Lora Engdahl, Elise Gould, Teresa Kroeger, Celine McNicholas, Lawrence Mishel, Zane Mokhiber, Heidi Shierholz, Marni von Wilpert, Valerie Wilson, and Ben Zipperer. 2017. How Today's Unions Help Working People: Giving Workers the Power to Improve Their Jobs and Unrig the Economy. Economic Policy Institute, August 2017.

Block, Sharon, and Ben Sachs. 2020. Clean Slate for Worker Power: Building a Just Economy and Democracy. Clean Slate for Worker Power, a project of the Labor and Worklife Program, Harvard Law School, January 2020, pp. 62-63.

Bronfenbrenner, Kate. 2009. No Holds Barred: The Intensification of Employer Opposition to Organizing. Economic Policy Institute and the American Rights at Work Education Fund, May 2009.

Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). 2020. " Frequently Asked Questions: The Impact of the Coronavirus (COVID-19) Pandemic on the Employment Situation for April 2020 " (web page). May 2020.

Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employee Benefits in the United States (BLS-EB). 2019a. "Table 2. Medical Care Benefits: Access, Participation, and Take-Up Rates, March 2019." In Employee Benefits in the United States-March 2019, published September 19, 2019.

Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employee Benefits in the United States (BLS-EB). 2019b. "Table 6. Selected Paid Leave Benefits: Access, March 2019." In Employee Benefits in the United States-March 2019, published September 19, 2019.

Bureau of Labor Statistics, American Time Use Survey (BLS-ATUS). 2019. " Table 1. Workers Who Could Work at Home, Did Work at Home, and Were Paid for Work at Home, by Selected Characteristics, Averages for the Period 2017-2018 " (economic news release). Last updated September 24, 2019; accessed July 2020.

Communications Workers of America (CWA). 2020. " Re: Leave Agreement." Letter from Verizon to Gladys M. Finnigan, Assistant to the Vice President, CWA, March 16, 2020.

Congressional Budget Office (CBO). 2020. An Update to the Economic Outlook: 2020 to 2030. Data supplement [ Excel]. Accessed July 2020.

Cotiaux, Neil. 2020a. " Mission Health Seeks Second Union Hearing Delay, Blames Pandemic." Carolina Public Press, April 6, 2020.

Cotiaux, Neil. 2020b. " Working for HCA: Asheville Nurses Protest Conditions at Mission Hospital, Win Ruling on Forming Union." Carolina Public Press, August 5, 2020.

Davenport, Christian, Abha Bhattarai, and Jena McGregor. 2020. " As Coronavirus Spreads, So Do Reports of Companies Mistreating Workers." Washington Post, March 31, 2020.

Dingel, Jonathan I., and Brent Neiman. 2020. " How Many Jobs Can Be Done at Home? " National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper no. 26948, issued April 2020, revised June 2020. https://doi.org/10.3386/w26948.

Economic Policy Institute (EPI). 2020. Current Population Survey Extracts, Version 1.0.7, https://microdata.epi.org.

Eidelson, Josh. 2020. " McDonald's Accused of Firing Worker over Strikes for Safety Gear." Bloomberg Law, July 22, 2020.

Engdahl, Lora. 2020. " Unions Are Giving Workers a Seat at the Table When It Comes to the Coronavirus Response." Working Economics Blog (Economic Policy Institute), March 31, 2020.

Farber, Henry S., Daniel Herbst, Illyana Kuziemko, and Suresh Naidu. 2018. " Unions and Inequality over the Twentieth Century: New Evidence from Survey Data." National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper no. 24587, May 2018.

Fawaz, Sahid. 2020. " Trump's NLRB: Employees Can Be Disciplined for Union Talk While on the Clock Even If It Doesn't Interrupt Work." Labor 411, June 1, 2020.

Fight for $15. 2020. " About Us " (web page). Accessed August 13, 2020.

Fortin, Nicole M., Thomas Lemieux, and Neil Lloyd. 2019. " Labor Market Institutions and the Distribution of Wages: The Role of Spillover Effects." Vancouver School of Economics, University of British Columbia, working paper, February 2019.

Gordon, Brian. 2020. " Mission Nurses Seek Union Election. What Happens Now?" Asheville Citizen Times, March 7, 2020.

Gould, Elise. 2020a. " Lack of Paid Sick Days and Large Numbers of Uninsured Increase Risks of Spreading the Coronavirus." Working Economics Blog (Economic Policy Institute), February 28, 2020.

Gould, Elise. 2020b. " The Bounceback Deflates: Job Gains Slow Considerably in July " (Economic Indicators). Economic Policy Institute, August 7, 2020.

Gould, Elise, and Heidi Shierholz. 2020. " Not Everybody Can Work from Home: Black and Hispanic Workers Are Much Less Likely to Be Able to Telework." Working Economics Blog (Economic Policy Institute), March 19, 2020.

Hertel-Fernandez, Alexander, Suresh Naidu, Adam Reich, and Patrick Youngblood. 2020. Understanding the COVID-19 Workplace: Evidence from a Survey of Essential Workers. Roosevelt Institute, June 2020.

Hiltzik, Michael. 2020. " Column: Nurses Know We Were Unprepared for the Coronavirus. They're Being Punished for Speaking Out." Los Angeles Times, April 17, 2020.

Ivanova, Irina. 2020a. " Amazon Fires Worker Who Organized Staten Island Warehouse Walkout." CBS News, March 31, 2020.

Ivanova, Irina. 2020b. " Whole Foods Workers Protest for Right to Wear 'Black Lives Matter' Masks." CBS News, June 28, 2020.

Jagannathan, Meera. 2020. " A Taco Bell Employee Says He Was Fired for Supporting Black Lives Matter: Could Your Company Fire You for the Same Reason?" MarketWatch, June 21, 2020.

Jamieson, Dave. 2020. " One Way to Protect Workers in A Pandemic: Make It Harder to Fire Them." Huffpost, May 23, 2020.

Jewett, Christina, Melissa Bailey, and Danielle Renwick. 2020. " Nearly 600-and Counting-US Health Workers Have Died of COVID-19." Kaiser Health News, June 2, 2020.

Kaplan, Ezra, and Jo Ling Kent. 2020. " Eighth Amazon Warehouse Worker Dies from COVID-19." NBC News, May 21, 2020.

Kochan, Thomas A., William T. Kimball, Duanyi Yang, and Erin L. Kelly. 2018. " Voice Gaps at Work, Options for Closing Them, and Challenges for Future Actions and Research. " MIT Sloan School of Management, Institute for Work and Employment Research working paper, June 2018.

Kruzel, John. 2020. " Hospitals Threatening to Fire Workers for Speaking Out About Coronavirus Shortages: Report." The Hill, March 31, 2020.

Lafer, Gordon, and Lola Loustaunau. 2020. Fear at Work: An Inside Account of How Employers Threaten, Intimidate, and Harass Workers to Stop Them from Exercising Their Right to Collective Bargaining. Economic Policy Institute, July 2020.

Maryland (State of) Office of Legal Counsel. 2020. " Interpretive Guidance: COVID19-04, re: Order of the Governor of the State of Maryland, Number 20-03-23-01." March 23, 2020.

Miller, Leila. 2020. " Low-Wage Workers Face Retaliation for Demanding COVID-19 Safety Measures at Work." Los Angeles Times, August 15, 2020.

McNicholas, Celine. 2020. " Congress Should Immediately Pass Legislation Protecting Workers' Safety During the Coronavirus Pandemic." Working Economics Blog (Economic Policy Institute), April 13, 2020.

McNicholas, Celine, and Margaret Poydock. 2020a. " Who Are Essential Workers? A Comprehensive Look at Their Wages, Demographics, and Unionization Rates." Working Economics Blog (Economic Policy Institute), May 19, 2020.

McNicholas, Celine, and Margaret Poydock. 2020b. " The Trump Administration Has Weakened Crucial Worker Protections Needed to Combat the Coronavirus: Agencies Tasked with Protecting Workers Have Put Them in Danger." Working Economics Blog (Economic Policy Institute), April 14, 2020.

McNicholas, Celine, Margaret Poydock, and Lynn Rhinehart. 2019. Unprecedented: The Trump NLRB's Attack on Workers' Rights. Economic Policy Institute, October 2019.

McNicholas, Celine, Margaret Poydock, Julia Wolfe, Ben Zipperer, Gordon Lafer, and Lola Loustaunau. 2019. Unlawful: U.S. Employers Are Charged with Violating Federal Law in 41.5% of All Union Election Campaigns. Economic Policy Institute, December 2019.

Muller, Eleanor. 2020. " Democrats, Unions Redouble Push to Move NLRB Elections Online." Politico, July 17, 2020.

National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). 2020. Joint Employer Status Under the National Labor Relations Act [ final rule], 85 Fed. Reg. 11184-11236 (February 26, 2020).

Pappas, Lista. 2020. " Whole Food Employees Continue Nearly 3-Week Long Walk-Out over BLM Mask Ban." Boston 25, July 11, 2020.

Paul, Kari. 2020. " Amazon Fires Two Employees Who Condemned Treatment of Warehouse Workers." Guardian, April 14, 2020.

Rhinehart, Lynn, and Celine McNicholas. 2020. Collective Bargaining Beyond the Worksite: How Workers and Their Unions Build Power and Set Standards for Their Industries. Economic Policy Institute, May 2020.

Rosenfeld, Jake, Patrick Denice, and Jennifer Laird. 2016. Union Decline Lowers Wages of Nonunion Workers: The Overlooked Reason Why Wages Are Stuck and Inequality Is Growing. Economic Policy Institute, August 30, 2016.

Scheiber, Noam, and Daisuke Wakabayashi. 2020. " Google Hires Firm Known for Anti-Union Efforts." New York Times, November 20, 2019.

Selyukh, Alina. 2020. " McDonald's Not Responsible for How Franchisees Treat Workers, U.S. Agency Rules." NPR, December 12, 2019.

Shierholz, Heidi. 2020. The Number of Workers Represented by a Union Held Steady in 2019, While Union Membership Fell. Economic Policy Institute, January 2020.

State of California. 2020. " Essential Workforce." COVID19.ca.gov, accessed July 27, 2020.

Teamsters (International Brotherhood of Teamsters). 2020. " Teamsters, DHL Reach Agreement to Help Minimize Layoffs " (press release). April 15, 2020.

United Automobile, Aerospace, and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW). 2020. " COVID-19 / Coronavirus Resources " (web page). Accessed July 2020.

United Food and Commercial Workers International Union (UFCW). 2020. " UFCW Announces Increased Pay, Benefits for Meatpacking and Food Processing Workers on Front Lines of Outbreak " (press release). March 2020.

United Food and Commercial Workers, Local 400 (UFCW Local 400). 2020. " Live Updates: New Policies in Effect at Giant, Kroger, Safeway & Shoppers " (press release). Updated June 6, 2020.

Virginia Department of Labor and Industry (VA DOLI). 2020. " §16VAC25-220, Emergency Temporary Standard Infectious Disease Prevention: SARS-CoV-2 Virus That Causes COVID-19 " (press release). July 15, 2020.

Western, Bruce, and Jake Rosenfeld. 2011. " Unions, Norms, and the Rise in U.S. Wage Inequality." American Sociological Review 76, no. 4 (August 2011): 513-537.

Wilson, Valerie, and Elise Gould. 2020. Black Workers Face Two of the Most Lethal Preexisting Conditions for Coronavirus-Racism and Economic Inequality. Economic Policy Institute, June 2020.

Wilson, Valerie, and William M. Rodgers III. 2016. Black-White Wage Gaps Expand with Rising Wage Inequality. Economic Policy Institute, September 2016.

Wong, Julia Carrie. 2019. " Google Workers Call on Company to Adopt Aggressive Climate Plan." The Guardian, November 4, 2019.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why unions are good for workers-especially in a crisis like COVID-19: 12 policies that would boost worker rights, safety, and wages

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
What this report finds: The COVID-19 pandemic has underscored both the importance of unions in giving workers a collective voice in the workplace and the urgent need to reform U.S. labor laws to arrest the erosion of those rights. During the crisis, unionized workers have been able to secure enhanced safety measures, additional premium pay,...

# data[].attributes.headline
Corporations Cause $2.2T in Environmental Damage Every Year

# data[].attributes.subject
Corporations Cause $2.2T in Environmental Damage Every Year

# data[].attributes.body
"These unaccounted environmental costs equate to 6 to 7 percent of the companies' combined turnover, or an average of one-third of their profits."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
[Editor's note: This article originally appeared on BusinessGreen and is reprinted with permission.]

The world's 3,000 largest companies are causing £1.4 trillion (US$2.2 trillion) worth of environmental damage every year, according to an unpublished U.N. report seen by the Guardian.

The report calculated about half the cost was associated with the release of greenhouse gases, while the remainder of the costs arise from local air pollution, and damage caused by the over-use and pollution of freshwater and fisheries.

These unaccounted environmental costs equate to 6 to 7 percent of the companies' combined turnover, or an average of one-third of their profits. However, the report also noted some businesses would be much harder hit than others if made financially responsible for the environmental externalities they cause.

Richard Mattison, chief operating officer of Trucost, which carried out the report for the U.N., told the Guardian: "Externalities of this scale and nature pose a major risk to the global economy and markets are not fully aware of these risks, nor do they know how to deal with them."

The actual environmental cost of firms' activities is likely to be even higher, because the ₤1.4tn does not include damage caused by social impacts such as large-scale migration of people and other long-term effects of climate change.

Later this year, another U.N.-backed study is expected to recommended a number of mechanisms for making firms financially responsible for the environmental damage they cause.
{related_content}
This second report, led by economist Pavan Sukhdev, is likely to argue for the abolition of subsidies to harmful industries and increased taxes on companies that cause high levels of environmental damage.

It is expected to take a similar line to the UK's Stern Review on the economics of climate change, arguing that it will prove more cost effective to address the damage done to biodiversity and so-called environmental services such as soil and water supplies now rather than delay action.

Mattison said it remained to be seen if governments are willing to take action to address environmental externalities. "It's going to be a significant proportion of a lot of companies' profit margins," he told the Guardian. "Whether they actually have to pay for these costs will be determined by the appetite for policy makers to enforce the 'polluter pays' principle."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Corporations Cause $2.2T in Environmental Damage Every Year | Greenbiz

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Editor's note: This article originally appeared on BusinessGreen and is reprinted with permission.] The world's 3,000 largest companies are causing £1.4 trillion (US$2.2 trillion) worth of environmental damage every year, according to an unpublished U.N. report seen by the Guardian.

# data[].attributes.body
"Sadly, the Paris Agreement Isn't Nearly Enough"

# data[].attributes.headline
Just 100 companies responsible for 71% of global emissions

# data[].attributes.subject
Just 100 companies responsible for 71% of global emissions

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Just 100 companies have been the source of more than 70% of the world's greenhouse gas emissions since 1988, according to a new report.

The Carbon Majors Report (pdf) "pinpoints how a relatively small set of fossil fuel producers may hold the key to systemic change on carbon emissions," says Pedro Faria, technical director at environmental non-profit CDP, which published the report in collaboration with the Climate Accountability Institute.

Traditionally, large scale greenhouse gas emissions data is collected at a national level but this report focuses on fossil fuel producers. Compiled from a database of publicly available emissions figures, it is intended as the first in a series of publications to highlight the role companies and their investors could play in tackling climate change.

The report found that more than half of global industrial emissions since 1988 - the year the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was established - can be traced to just 25 corporate and state-owned entities. The scale of historical emissions associated with these fossil fuel producers is large enough to have contributed significantly to climate change, according to the report.

ExxonMobil, Shell, BP and Chevron are identified as among the highest emitting investor-owned companies since 1988. If fossil fuels continue to be extracted at the same rate over the next 28 years as they were between 1988 and 2017, says the report, global average temperatures would be on course to rise by 4C by the end of the century. This is likely to have catastrophic consequences including substantial species extinction and global food scarcity risks.

While companies have a huge role to play in driving climate change, says Faria, the barrier is the "absolute tension" between short-term profitability and the urgent need to reduce emissions.

A Carbon Tracker study in 2015 found that fossil fuel companies risked wasting more than $2tn over the coming decade by pursuing coal, oil and gas projects that could be worthless in the face of international action on climate change and advances in renewables - in turn posing substantial threats to investor returns.

CDP says its aims with the carbon majors project are both to improve transparency among fossil fuel producers and to help investors understand the emissions associated with their fossil fuel holdings.

A fifth of global industrial greenhouse gas emissions are backed by public investment, according to the report. "That puts a significant responsibility on those investors to engage with carbon majors and urge them to disclose climate risk," says Faria.

Investors should move out of fossil fuels, says Michael Brune, executive director of US environmental organisation the Sierra Club. "Not only is it morally risky, it's economically risky. The world is moving away from fossil fuels towards clean energy and is doing so at an accelerated pace. Those left holding investments in fossil fuel companies will find their investments becoming more and more risky over time."

There is a "growing wave of companies that are acting in the opposite manner to the companies in this report," says Brune. Nearly 100 companies including Apple, Facebook, Google and Ikea have committed to 100% renewable power under the RE100 initiative. Volvo recently announced that all its cars would be electric or hybrid from 2019.

And oil and gas companies are also embarking on green investments. Shell set up a renewables arm in 2015 with a $1.7bn investment attached and a spokesperson for Chevron says it's "committed to managing its [greenhouse gas] emissions" and is investing in two of the world's largest carbon dioxide injection projects to capture and store carbon. A BP spokesperson says its "determined to be part of the solution" for climate change and is "investing in renewables and low-carbon innovation." And ExxonMobil, which has faced heavy criticism for its environmental record, has been exploring carbon capture and storage.

But for many the sums involved and pace of change are nowhere near enough. A research paper published last year by Paul Stevens, an academic at think tank Chatham House, said international oil companies were no longer fit for purpose and warned these multinationals that they faced a "nasty, brutish and short" end within the next 10 years if they did not completely change their business models.

Investors now have a choice, according to Charlie Kronick, senior programme advisor at Greenpeace UK. "The future of the oil industry has already been written: the choice is will its decline be managed, returning capital to shareholders to be reinvested in the genuine industries of the future, or will they hold on, hoping not be the last one standing when the music stops?"

Top 100 producers and their cumulative greenhouse gas emissions from 1988-2015

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Just 100 companies responsible for 71% of global emissions, study says

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A relatively small number of fossil fuel producers and their investors could hold the key to tackling climate change

# data[].attributes.headline
Global Climate Agreements: Successes and Failures

# data[].attributes.subject
Global Climate Agreements: Successes and Failures

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Introduction

Over the last several decades, governments have collectively pledged to slow global warming. But despite intensified diplomacy, the world is already facing the consequences of climate change, and it is expected to get worse.

Through the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement, countries agreed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere keeps rising, heating the Earth at an alarming rate. Scientists warn that if this warming continues unabated, it could bring environmental catastrophe to much of the world, including staggering sea-level rise, record-breaking droughts and floods, and widespread species loss.

Since negotiating the Paris Accord in 2015, many of the 195 countries that are party to the agreement have strengthened their climate commitments during the annual UN climate conferences known as the Conference of the Parties (COP). However, ahead of this year's COP28 summit in Dubai, the United Nations has sounded a warning that governments are not on track to meet their Paris goals, urging them to adopt much more ambitious decarbonization plans.

What are the most important international agreements on climate change?

Montreal Protocol, 1987. Though not intended to tackle climate change, the Montreal Protocol [PDF] was a historic environmental accord that became a model for future diplomacy on the issue. Every country in the world eventually ratified the treaty, which required them to stop producing substances that damage the ozone layer, such as chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). The protocol has succeeded in eliminating nearly 99 percent of these ozone-depleting substances. In 2016, parties agreed via the Kigali Amendment to also reduce their production of hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), powerful greenhouse gases that contribute to climate change.

UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), 1992. Ratified by 197 countries, including the United States, the landmark accord [PDF] was the first global treaty to explicitly address climate change. It established an annual forum, known as the Conference of the Parties, or COP, for international discussions aimed at stabilizing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. These meetings produced the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement.

Kyoto Protocol, 2005. The Kyoto Protocol [PDF], adopted in 1997 and entered into force in 2005, was the first legally binding climate treaty. It required developed countries to reduce emissions by an average of 5 percent below 1990 levels, and established a system to monitor countries' progress. But the treaty did not compel developing countries, including major carbon emitters China and India, to take action. The United States signed the agreement in 1998 but never ratified it and later withdrew its signature.

Paris Agreement, 2015. The most significant global climate agreement to date, the Paris Agreement requires all countries to set emissions-reduction pledges. Governments set targets, known as nationally determined contributions (NDCs), with the goals of preventing the global average temperature from rising 2°C (3.6°F) above preindustrial levels and pursuing efforts to keep it below 1.5°C (2.7°F). It also aims to reach global net-zero emissions, where the amount of greenhouse gases emitted equals the amount removed from the atmosphere, in the second half of the century. (This is also known as being climate neutral or carbon neutral.)

Every five years, countries are supposed to assess their progress toward implementing the agreement through a process known as the global stocktake. The first, released in September 2023, warned governments that "the world is not on track to meet the long-term goals of the Paris Agreement."

The United States, the world's second-largest emitter, was the only country to withdraw from the accord, a move by former President Donald Trump that took effect in November 2020. However, President Joe Biden reentered the United States into the agreement during his first months in office. Three countries have not formally approved the agreement: Iran, Libya, and Yemen.

Is there a consensus on the science of climate change?

Yes, there is a broad consensus among the scientific community, though some deny that climate change is a problem, including politicians in the United States. When negotiating teams meet for international climate talks, there is "less skepticism about the science and more disagreement about how to set priorities," says David Victor, an international relations professor at the University of California, San Diego. The basic science is that:

the Earth's average temperature is rising at an unprecedented rate;

human activities, namely the use of fossil fuels-coal, oil, and natural gas-are the primary drivers of this rapid warming and climate change; and,

continued warming is expected to have harmful effects worldwide.

Data taken from ice cores shows that the Earth's average temperature is rising more now than it has in eight hundred thousand years. Scientists say this is largely a result of human activities over the last 150 years, such as burning fossil fuels and deforestation. These activities have dramatically increased the amount of heat-trapping greenhouse gases, primarily carbon dioxide, in the atmosphere, causing the planet to warm.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a UN body established in 1988, regularly assesses the latest climate science and produces consensus-based reports for countries.

Why are countries aiming to keep global temperature rise below 1.5°C?

Scientists have warned for years of catastrophic environmental consequences if global temperature continues to rise at the current pace. The Earth's average temperature has already increased approximately 1.1°C above preindustrial levels, according to a 2021 assessment [PDF] by the IPCC. The report, drafted by more than two hundred scientists from over sixty countries, predicts that the world will reach or exceed 1.5°C of warming within the next two decades even if nations drastically cut emissions immediately.

An earlier, more comprehensive IPCC report summarized the severe effects expected to occur when the global temperature warms by 1.5°C:

Heat waves. Many regions will suffer more hot days, with about 14 percent of people worldwide being exposed to periods of severe heat at least once every five years.

Droughts and floods. Regions will be more susceptible to droughts and floods, making farming more difficult, lowering crop yields, and causing food shortages.

Rising seas. Tens of millions of people live in coastal regions that will be submerged in the coming decades. Small island nations are particularly vulnerable.

"We're headed toward disaster if we can't get our warming in check."

Alice C. Hill,

Ocean changes. Up to 90 percent of coral reefs will be wiped out, and oceans will become more acidic. The world's fisheries will become far less productive.

Arctic ice thaws. At least once a century, the Arctic will experience a summer with no sea ice, which has not happened in at least two thousand years. Forty percent of the Arctic's permafrost will thaw by the end of the century.

Species loss. More insects, plants, and vertebrates will be at risk of extinction.

The consequences will be far worse if the 2°C threshold is reached, scientists say. "We're headed toward disaster if we can't get our warming in check and we need to do this very quickly," says Alice C. Hill, CFR senior fellow for energy and the environment.

Which countries are responsible for climate change?

The answer depends on who you ask and how you measure emissions. Ever since the first climate talks in the 1990s, officials have debated which countries-developed or developing-are more to blame for climate change and should therefore curb their emissions.

Developing countries argue that developed countries have emitted more greenhouse gases over time. They say these developed countries should now carry more of the burden because they were able to grow their economies without restraint. Indeed, the United States has emitted the most of all time, followed by the European Union (EU).

However, China and India are now among the world's top annual emitters, along with the United States. Developed countries have argued that those countries must do more now to address climate change.

In the context of this debate, major climate agreements have evolved in how they pursue emissions reductions. The Kyoto Protocol required only developed countries to reduce emissions, while the Paris Agreement recognized that climate change is a shared problem and called on all countries to set emissions targets.

Are the commitments made under the Paris Agreement enough?

Most experts say that countries' pledges are not ambitious enough and will not be enacted quickly enough to limit global temperature rise to 1.5°C. The policies of Paris signatories as of late 2022 could result in a 2.7°C (4.9°F) rise by 2100, according to the Climate Action Tracker compiled by Germany-based nonprofits Climate Analytics and the NewClimate Institute.

"The Paris Agreement is not enough. Even at the time of negotiation, it was recognized as not being enough," says CFR's Hill. "It was only a first step, and the expectation was that as time went on, countries would return with greater ambition to cut their emissions."

Since 2015, dozens of countries-including the top emitters-have submitted stronger pledges. For example, President Biden announced in 2021 that the United States will aim to cut emissions by 50 to 52 percent compared to 2005 levels by 2030, doubling former President Barack Obama's commitment. The following year, the U.S. Congress approved legislation that could get the country close to reaching that goal. Meanwhile, the EU pledged to reduce emissions by at least 55 percent compared to 1990 levels by 2030, and China said it aims to reach peak emissions before 2030.

But the world's average temperature will still rise 2.0°C (3.6°F) by 2100 even if countries fully implement their pledges for 2030 and beyond. If the more than one hundred countries that have set or are considering net-zero targets follow through, warming could be limited to 1.8˚C (3.2°F), according to the Climate Action Tracker.

What are the alternatives to the Paris Agreement?

Some experts foresee the most meaningful climate action happening in other forums. Yale University economist William Nordhaus says that purely voluntary international accords like the Paris Agreement promote free-riding, and are destined to fail. The best way to cut global emissions, he says, would be to have governments negotiate a universal carbon price rather than focus on country emissions limits. Others propose new agreements [PDF] that apply to specific emissions or sectors to complement the Paris Accord.

"Progress is going to happen not globally with all countries joined together, but in smaller groups and by sector," says Victor, the international relations professor. In recent years, there have been examples of this. The Group of Twenty (G20), representing countries that are responsible for 80 percent of the world's greenhouse gas pollution, has pledged to stop financing new coal-fired power plants abroad and agreed to triple renewable energy capacity by the end of this decade. However, G20 governments have thus far failed to set a deadline to phase out fossil fuels. In 2022, countries in the International Civil Aviation Organization set a goal of achieving net-zero emissions for commercial aviation by 2050. Meanwhile, cities around the world have made their own pledges. In the United States, more than six hundred local governments [PDF] have detailed climate action plans that include emissions-reduction targets.

Industry is also a large source of carbon pollution, and many firms have said they will try to reduce their emissions or become carbon neutral or carbon negative, meaning they would remove more carbon from the atmosphere than they release. And while there remains little to no oversight of corporate emissions, some governments, including that of the United States, are considering requiring large businesses to report their carbon footprint. The Science Based Targets initiative, a UK-based company considered the "gold standard" in validating corporate net-zero plans, says it has certified the plans of over three thousand firms, and aims to more than triple this total by 2025. Still, analysts say that many challenges remain, including questions over the accounting methods and a lack of transparency in supply chains.

Despite these trends, many observers say that policymakers still have the biggest role to play in setting and enforcing emissions targets. "It's all pretty small relative to governments around the world setting a forceful climate policy," Michael Greenstone, an economics professor at the University of Chicago, tells CFR's Why It Matters podcast.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Global Climate Agreements: Successes and Failures

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
International efforts, such as the Paris Agreement, aim to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. But experts say countries aren't doing enough to limit dangerous global warming.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The World's Worst Oil Related Disaster You've Never Heard Of | I Was There

# data[].attributes.headline
Shell - ordered to pay compensation for oil spills in Nigeria

# data[].attributes.subject
Shell - ordered to pay compensation for oil spills in Nigeria

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A Dutch appeals court has ruled that the Nigerian branch of oil giant Shell is responsible for damage caused by leaks in the Niger Delta.

The court ordered Shell Nigeria to pay compensation to Nigerian farmers, while the subsidiary and its Anglo-Dutch parent company were told to install equipment to prevent future damage.

A group of farmers launched the case in 2008, alleging widespread pollution.

Shell says the leaks were the result of "sabotage".

In a statement on Friday, Royal Dutch Shell said it was "disappointed" with the verdict.

The ruling can be appealed against.

The judgment could have implications beyond Nigeria, in terms of corporate responsibility and the duty of care multinationals have to the people in the places where they operate, reports the BBC's Anna Holligan from The Hague.

While the oil spills in this case happened from 2004 to 2007, pollution from leaking pipelines continues to be a major issue in the Niger Delta.

The court said Shell had not proven "beyond reasonable doubt" that saboteurs were responsible for the leaks affecting the villages of Goi and Oruma, rather than poor maintenance.

"This makes Shell Nigeria responsible for the damage caused by the leaks" in these areas, it said. It added that the amount of compensation would be "determined at a later stage".

'Justice has prevailed'

The court found that a leak in Ikot Ada Udo village was a result of sabotage, but said it needed more time to resolve the case.

The four farmers who launched the case - Barizaa Dooh, Elder Friday Alfred Akpan, Chief Fidelis A Oguru and Alali Efanga - said the leaks from underground oil pipelines had cost them their livelihoods by contaminating land and waterways. Mr Efanga and Mr Dooh have died since the case was first filed in 2008 so their sons pursued the case instead.

"I'm very happy - the common man in Nigeria now has hope," Princewill Efanga told the BBC.

James Oguru, son of Chief Oguru, said "justice had prevailed" but urged Shell to "do the necessary" so they could start farming again.

The farmers were backed by environmental group Friends of the Earth.

"Tears of joy here. After 13 years, we've won," the group's Dutch branch tweeted following the ruling.

Nigerians hope it will be different this time

Kunle Falayi, BBC News, Lagos

This is the first time individual farmers who have had their sources of livelihood taken away by the environmental destruction in the Niger Delta hope to get justice.

It is being received with excitement among environmental activists, as it may open a floodgate of more litigation against Shell and other corporations involved in oil exploration in the region.

Kentebbe Ebiarido, who represents some of the farmers, said people in the area had been "cheated environmentally and economically" and that no matter how much the multinationals had misbehaved in the past, the communities now have hope.

For many years, Shell has been accused of being responsible for the contamination of the region through leaks from oil exploration - allegations it has always denied.

There have been settlements in the past. But in those instances - like in 2005 when Shell agreed to an $84m (£60m) deal for fishermen in the Bodo community - thousands of residents of the Niger Delta were lumped together. When such settlements eventually got to each of them, it did not amount to much.

But this time, even though no-one knows what the compensation will be, there is little doubt that it will different to before.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Shell Nigeria ordered to pay compensation for oil spills

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A Dutch appeals court has ruled that the Nigerian branch of oil giant Shell is responsible for damage caused by leaks in the Niger Delta. The court ordered Shell Nigeria to pay compensation to Nigerian farmers, while the subsidiary and its Anglo-Dutch parent company were told to install equipment to prevent future damage.

# data[].attributes.headline
Walmart - Gender-based violence and discrimination in supply chains

# data[].attributes.subject
Walmart - Gender-based violence and discrimination in supply chains

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Gender based violence in the Walmart garment supply chains is about the way that Walmart does business.

On May 28th, 2018 a global coalition of trade unions, worker rights and human rights organizations, which includes Asia Floor Wage Alliance, CENTRAL Cambodia, and Global Labor Justice released new factory level research detailing gender based violence in Walmart's Asian garment supply chain. The coalition asks for immediate action by Walmart.

For women garment workers, violence and harassment isn't limited to violence that takes place in physical workplaces, but also during commutes and in employer provided housing. Women garment workers in Walmart supply chains in Bangladesh and Cambodia reported acts of violence that include acts that inflicted sexual harm and suffering; physical violence, verbal abuse, coercion, threats and retaliation, and routine deprivations of liberty including forced overtime.

These are not isolated incidents. Rather, they reflect a convergence of risk factors for gender based violence in Walmart supplier factories that leave women garment workers systematically exposed to violence. Risk factors for violence documented in the Walmart garment supply chain, include: use of short term contracts, production targets, industrial discipline practices, wage related rights abuses, excessive working hours, and unsafe workplaces.

Barriers to accountability include: unauthorized subcontracting, denial of freedom of association, failure to require independent monitoring, and gendered cultures of impunity among perpetrators of violence and prevent women from seeking accountability and relief.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Walmart: Gender Based Violence in Global Supply Chains - Global Labor Justice

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Gender based violence in the Walmart garment supply chains is about the way that Walmart does business. On May 28th, 2018 a global coalition of trade unions, worker rights and human rights organizations, which includes Asia Floor Wage Alliance, CENTRAL Cambodia, and Global Labor Justice...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
NEW YORK - In its first study of how an American company treats its workers, Human Rights Watch asserted that Wal-Mart's aggressive efforts to keep out labor unions often violated federal law and infringed on its workers' rights.

Human Rights Watch, which typically focuses on rights violations in places like Burundi or North Korea, said on Monday that when Wal-Mart stores faced unionization drives, the company often broke the law by, for example, eavesdropping on workers, training surveillance cameras on them and firing those who favored unions.

"While many American companies use weak U.S. laws to stop workers from organizing, the retail giant stands out for the sheer magnitude and aggressiveness of its anti-union apparatus," the human rights group wrote.

Wal-Mart Stores has more than 1.3 million workers at its nearly 4,000 stores in the United States, none of whom belong to a union.

Wal-Mart, in response to the study, vigorously defended its labor practices. David Tovar, a Wal-Mart spokesman, said the company provided an environment for open communications and gave its employees "every opportunity to express their ideas, comments and concerns."

"It is because of our efforts to foster such an environment that our associates have repeatedly rejected unionization attempts," he said.

Tovar said the report used unsubstantiated accusations from as long as seven years ago. Two of the five organizing drives that the 219-page report examined took place in 2005, while the other three campaigns took place more than five years ago.

"Contrary to the allegations in this report, Wal-Mart respects our associates' right to a free and fair unionization vote," Tovar said. "We remain committed to compliance with U.S. laws regarding workers' right to unionize."

Carol Pier, a senior researcher at Human Rights Watch and author of the Wal-Mart report, said her organization decided to look specifically at Wal-Mart because of concerns about violations of labor laws.

"When the largest private employer in the United States seems to be able to violate U.S. labor law with virtual impunity, that's a very serious cause for concern, both with respect to its impact on its employees, but also on the conduct by other employers in the United States," Pier said in a telephone interview.

Wal-Mart called the study "pro-union." Pier said only $50 of her organization's $33 million budget came from labor unions.

Over the last few years, the main union for retail workers, the United Food and Commercial Workers, has suspended efforts to organize any Wal-Mart stores in the United States, largely because Wal-Mart's counteroffensives make that so difficult, union officials said.

Moreover, union officials said they could put more pressure on Wal-Mart by mounting a sophisticated publicity campaign to embarrass it over its wages, benefits and overall treatment of its employees.

For the most part, the unionization drives described in the report, at Wal-Mart stores in Arizona, South Carolina, Pennsylvania and Colorado, grew out of discontent over wages and health benefits.

Wal-Mart says it has increased wages, to an average of $10.51 an hour for full-time workers, and has improved its health insurance, creating a plan with premiums of $23 a month anywhere in the country.

"People want to work at Wal-Mart because we offer competitive wages, affordable health benefits and real career opportunities," Tovar said.

But critics say that even with the increase in wages, many Wal-Mart workers still live below the poverty line, and that its low-premium health plan remains unaffordable to many workers because the deductibles often run to $3,000 a family.

Human Rights Watch issued a report in 2000 saying that America's labor laws and labor law enforcement were so weak that they made it difficult for workers to unionize, and that they violate international labor standards.

The report issued Monday asserted that Wal-Mart took advantage of those weak laws to push its workers into opposing unions, by, for example, ordering them to attend meetings with anti-union speakers and videos.

"Wal-Mart asserts that respect for the individual is one of the core values that have made us into the company we are today," the report said. "Wal-Mart's systematic interference with individual workers' right to freedom of association flies in the face of this professed core value."

The report found that unions and workers had brought 292 cases against Wal-Mart, with the National Labor Relations Board finding that 101 cases had merit. Those cases were consolidated into 39 complaints, with 17 administrative law judges ruling that Wal-Mart had violated labor laws. The labor board reversed two of those decisions.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Human Rights Watch says Wal-Mart has broken labor laws (Published 2007)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
NEW YORK - In its first study of how an American company treats its workers, Human Rights Watch asserted that Wal-Mart's aggressive efforts to keep out labor unions often violated federal law and infringed on its workers' rights.

# data[].attributes.headline
Starbucks, Amazon and Costco rapped for weak human rights disclosure

# data[].attributes.subject
Starbucks, Amazon and Costco rapped for weak human rights disclosure

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Many of the world's biggest listed companies including Amazon, LVMH and Qualcomm are not transparent in how they identify and address human rights issues in their businesses and supply chains, according to the Corporate Human Rights Benchmark.

The London-based not-for-profit found about half of 200 groups it analysed failed to show any evidence at all that they are identifying and addressing human rights issues with the tech sector of particular concern.

Forty tech manufacturers, which were included in the CHRB ranking for the first time this year, scored particularly badly with an average score of 18 per cent compared to 24 per cent across the entire basket of companies.

Among the worst in the ranking, Starbucks scored 8.5 per cent while Costco Wholesale 8.8 per cent. Costco did not respond to a request for comment.

"It's a pretty poor picture overall," said Steve Waygood, chief responsible investment officer at Aviva Investors and chairman of the CHRB. He said naming and shaming companies in the ranking was having some effect. "The concept of generating a race to the top seems to work but it is working from a very low base."

The CHRB analysis is based on the UN guiding principles on business and human rights, with companies questioned on topics such as whether their board reviews human rights issues, how they ensure workers in supply chains are paid a living wage and their efforts to avoid child labour.

The London-based not-for-profit presents companies with a draft score following an initial analysis and gives them until June or July to provide extra information.

Human rights is an area of increasing concern to investors. On Thursday Norway's $1tn oil fund said it was selling shares in G4S over concerns the security company was responsible for alleged human rights violations in the Middle East. Norges Bank Investment Management, the manager of the world's largest sovereign wealth fund, has also excluded several other companies on human rights grounds.

G4S said it had made "progress on our action plan to reinforce our high standards in relation to employee recruitment and welfare provisions in the Middle East".

Shareholder resolutions on human rights this year included a proposal that Macy's report on how the retailer identifies human rights risks in its business, with 35 per cent of shareholders voting in favour.

The CHRB is backed by asset managers including APG Asset Management and Nordea as well as the Swiss, Dutch and British governments. Mr Waygood said Aviva Investors, which manages £346bn in assets, withheld support at 40 companies during their annual meetings this year to signify displeasure at lowly CHRB rankings.

The CHRB noted some improvements since the ranking was first published. The 100 original companies analysed in 2017 have seen their average score increase from 18 per cent to 31 per cent. Top performers include Adidas, Rio Tinto and Unilever, which achieved scores of more than 75 per cent.

However the report added there were "still plenty of laggards . . . need further and greater pressure to act", citing Starbucks and Costco Wholesale as examples. One in five companies included since 2017 have failed to significantly improve on low scores.

Amazon, which scored 16.2 per cent, rejected the findings.

It said the CHRB score did not reflect its position on human rights, it had published principles on the topic and updated its supply chain standards policy.

"We are committed to ensuring the people, workers, and communities that support our entire value chain are treated with fundamental dignity," it said.

Starbucks also disputed the CHRB's assessment, adding it has a statement on human rights and "zero tolerance for human rights abuses on coffee farms".

"Overall, it's disappointing to see the latest methodology employed for CHRB's report," it said.

LVMH, which scored 16.8 per cent, and Qualcomm, the US chipmaker which scored 8 per cent, did not respond to requests for comment.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Starbucks, Amazon and Costco rapped for weak human rights disclosure

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Many of the world's biggest listed companies including Amazon, LVMH and Qualcomm are not transparent in how they identify and address human rights issues in their businesses and supply chains, according to the Corporate Human Rights Benchmark.

# data[].attributes.body
A more evocative, personal take on the Hengyang situation

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Five o'clock in the morning and the young woman's eyelids are drooping. All night she has been removing spots of dust from Amazon smartspeakers with a toothbrush. Time seems to crawl. Now she is overwhelmed with exhaustion.

She works on, more and more slowly, until she can do no more. She looks around the workshop. Other workers have rested their heads on the bench. She slumps forward and falls asleep.

Let's call the young woman Alexa. Alexa, what are you doing here?

For an answer, we must fast forward a couple of months to last Monday. It is an overcast morning in the city of Hengyang, in the southern Chinese province of Hunan. More than seven million people live in this city, the second-largest in the province. It is known locally as the Wild Goose City, for the birds that used to stop off on their southerly migration, but many people even within China would struggle to find it on a map.

The morning is warm but overcast, with a light haze that could be fog or pollution. The road to the Foxconn factory in Baishazhou Industrial Park is wide and lined with well-cared-for plants. There's a steady stream of cars, motorbikes and buses heading towards the factory, which sits back from the road behind a large gate. Blue-uniformed security staff keep watch on those coming in and the street outside.

Dozens of workers are arriving, casually dressed in jeans and T-shirts. Most are young and there is a good mixture of women and men. Ahead of them lies a 60-hour week, eight regular hours for five days, plus two more of overtime each day and another 10 on Saturday. They will be expected to hit tough targets and must ask permission to use the toilets. The overtime - up to 80 hours a month - is far in excess of the 36 hours stipulated in Chinese labour laws, but companies can and do seek exemptions and workers want the overtime, to boost their basic pay.

These are the people who are making the smart speakers and tablets that Amazon hopes to make a fixture in millions more homes around the world this year: the Echo and Echo Dot - which both spring to life when the user addresses them as Alexa - and the Kindles.

It is a year since Amazon sealed a deal with the giant Foxconn company to ramp up its hardware production in Hengyang, with the Chinese firm reportedly adding 30 new production lines and creating 15,000 jobs.

Foxconn is China's largest single private employer, and in March it reported a 4.2% increase in profits, with net income rising to £1.84bn in the last three quarters of 2017. Profits for the first quarter of this year were £605m and its CEO, Terry Gou, has a fortune reported to be about £5.3bn. But it is said to be keen to diversify to reduce its reliance on Apple and it is investing heavily in the Hengyang plant to meet the demand from Amazon.

The Foxconn factory in Hengyang relies on the tried and tested formula of low wages and long hours. But here there is another element: the extensive use of agency workers who don't have the security of a regular job.

These employees - known as dispatch workers in China - are hired in from labour companies as an off-the-shelf workforce. They are generally slightly better-paid than permanent members of staff, but they get no sick pay or holiday pay and can be laid off without any pay at all during quiet months when production drops off. In some ways they resemble the Amazon products they are making: wanted one day and discarded the next.

But the increasing reliance on a disposable workforce by companies has alarmed the Chinese government, and in 2014 it changed its labour laws to limit dispatch workers to just 10% of a company's staff - and then only to cover temporary work. Companies were expected to fill most positions with regular staff on employment contracts.

The wage slips pinned to the walls of the Foxconn factory in Hengyang suggest that the message may be taking some time to get through: they show that about 40% of the workforce in the Hengyang plant are bought in from agencies. These are the workers on whom Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos is relying to further entrench his position as the world's richest man.

Jeff Bezos, Amazon founder, US. Worth $102bn.

Bill Gates, Microsoft founder, US. Worth $90bn.

Warren Buffett, investments, US. Worth $84bn.

Bernard Arnault, LVMH (luxury goods), France. Worth $72bn.

Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook, US. Worth $71bn.

Was this helpful?

Thank you for your feedback.

Bezos is worth an estimated £102bn, a fortune he acquired against a backdrop of global reports of misery for Amazon's warehouse workers, exhausted by the demands made on them in return for the most basic of wages. Unions and labour rights groups have protested about low pay and harsh working conditions, and three delivery firms used by Amazon are facing a legal challenge from the GMB union, demanding that gig economy delivery drivers receive sick pay and holiday pay.

Last month it was revealed that ambulances had been called 600 times to Amazon's UK warehouses over the past three years. There have been repeated calls for Amazon to improve the lot of its workers.

But Bezos doesn't see the need. Collecting an award for " outstanding personalities who are particularly innovative, and who generate and change markets, influence culture and at the same time face up to their responsibility to society " a couple of months ago, he was questioned about the controversies surrounding the way he made his money.

"When you're criticised," he said, "first look in the mirror and decide: are your critics right? If they are right, change. Don't resist."

But Bezos's mirror apparently showed him that his critics were wrong. "I'm very proud of our working conditions and very proud of the wages we pay," he told the audience gathered to fete him.

Facebook Twitter Pinterest

Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos has become the world's richest man. Photograph: Todd Williamson/Getty

And now he and Gou have brought that same formula to Hengyang. But what draws two of the world's richest men to set up in a city far from the big manufacturing hubs of Shenzhen, Shanghai, Tianjin and Guangzhou, with their easy access to shipping and huge industrial bases?

For an answer, it helps to know that Alexa is working for 14.5 yuan an hour (£1.69). That's £1 less than the £2.69 national average for a factory worker in China. Foxconn could not pay her so little in Shenzhen, where the legal minimum wage is 19.5 yuan an hour, or in Shanghai, where it is 20 yuan.

Some days Alexa gets to work overtime. But when she opens her wage slip at the end of the month she will be disappointed, because she and her fellow dispatch workers are paid only the same 14.5 yuan rate that they get for the main shift, instead of the time-and-a-half stipulated by Chinese labour law and Amazon's own supplier code of conduct.

Foxconn promises agency workers a minimum of 3,700 yuan a month (£431.64), but pay slips and workers' own accounts suggest real wages rarely get close to that figure. Most earn between 2,000 and 3,000 yuan, with permanent staff earning between 2,000 and 2,500 yuan. In 2017, the average wage for a worker in Hengyang was 4,647 yuan a month.

Pay rates have rocketed in China in recent years, but Hunan remains one of the provinces with the lowest wages, and the minimum in Hengyang - 1,280 yuan a month - is barely half that in Shenzhen, where Foxconn's Apple factory is based.

I'm very proud of our working conditions and very proud of the wages we pay

Jeff Bezos, Amazon CEO

That Shenzhen factory has been the subject of years of criticism for its treatment of staff manufacturing iPhones and other Apple devices - with 14 suicides in 2010 prompting the installation of netting around the factory dormitories to catch workers jumping from the roofs.

Now rewind again, back to March. It is early evening and Alexa is getting off the bus and entering the factory for the night shift. She has secured a job as a dispatch worker through the Qizhong labour company - one of six supplying the factory - and has joined the production line making Amazon's mini smart speaker, the Echo Dot.

Alexa looks much like the other young women around her, but she has a secret. Alexa has been sent in undercover by the US-based labour rights investigator China Labor Watch to find out what is going on behind the security gate. It is the first time anyone has investigated Amazon's production lines, and CLW has teamed up with the Observer (and the Sunday Mirror) to publish the findings. Its own report - Amazon Profits from Secretly Oppressing its Supplier's Workers - is published online today.

Facebook Twitter Pinterest

Wage slips pinned to the walls in the Foxconn factory, Hengyang. Photograph: China Labor Watch

Alexa is early, like all the other workers. They know that they must leave time to clear security and be at their workstations for the 8pm start, though they won't be paid for turning up early. She notices that the temperature inside the workshops is noticeably higher than outside and the anti-static gloves she has to wear quickly make her hands sweat.

Every day when she returns to the company dormitory she shares with five other women, she jots down what she has seen in her diary: the monotonous work; the colleagues complaining about sore backs and the bright lights that make their eyes tired; the overwhelming sense of exhaustion. She notes that workers must ask permission from a supervisor to go to the toilet, and how some workers are left in tears when they are told off by their line manager.

Today Alexa has to clean 1,400 Echo Dot speakers with a toothbrush dipped in rubbing alcohol to remove any specks of dust. Four-and-a-half hours into the shift, she is already flagging.

"I was already so tired and my movements grew slower," she writes later. "I brushed with less and less force. There were 20 or 30 speakers building up in front of me that I had yet to brush clean.

"The speakers that remained to be cleaned kept building up in front of me. The line technician came over and told me to brush faster and that my movements were too slow ... but I no longer had any strength."

Another day she chats to an older woman sitting opposite her.

"The woman across from me said that she had been brushing for so long that her hand was growing numb, her neck was sore, her back was sore, her eyes couldn't see clearly, and her vision was getting worse ..."

Another worker tells her she, too, is suffering: "While working at the same work position and doing the same motions over and over again each day, she felt exhausted and her back was sore and her neck, back and arms could barely take it any more."

Alexa's diary makes no happier reading the following day. A woman of about 45 tells her how she has been scolded because she is not fast enough: "It might be because she was getting older so her speed was slower and her reactions were slower. When the line leader was telling her off, she started crying. After I returned to the dorm, an older woman ... said that last time the line leader told her off, she also cried."

She describes long nights of repetitive and relentless work, with fellow workers close to falling asleep on their feet. During a break about midnight she sees that "many people were resting on the assembly line and sleeping, while others had pushed together some chairs and were sleeping on those. Some had even stacked together some foam boards and slept on top of them."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Underpaid and exhausted: the human cost of your Kindle

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Five o'clock in the morning and the young woman's eyelids are drooping. All night she has been removing spots of dust from Amazon smartspeakers with a toothbrush. Time seems to crawl. Now she is overwhelmed with exhaustion. She works on, more and more slowly, until she can do no more.

# data[].attributes.body
A more objective, detached take on rights violations in a Chinese Amazon factory

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A Chinese factory mainly manufacturing products for Amazon has been involved in several human rights violations, an NGO has alleged.
An investigation into a factory run by Hengyang Foxconn supplying Amazon found agency workers employed there had received inadequate safety training, had been denied sick pay and were not receiving mandated social insurance contributions.

Amazon said it found two issues in its latest audit of the factory and had immediately asked for a corrective action plan from Hengyang Foxconn.

The allegations were outlined in a report by China Labor Watch, which said it had sent several investigators into a Hengyang Foxconn factory that manufactures Amazon's Kindle e-reader, its Echo Dot smart speaker and tablets. The investigations took place between August 2017 and April 2018.

The report found conditions were different for agency workers compared to regular employees in the same positions. While regular workers received five days training, agency workers only received eight hours - well below the legally-mandated 24-hours of safety training. Agency workers were also were forced to pay physical examination fees, unlike some regular workers.

Agency staff were also paid a normal rate for overtime, while regular employees received an overtime wage, and would lose an "attendance bonus" if they took more than two days off or were late more than twice in one month.

The report also claimed that agency workers were not paid sick leave, were sent on unpaid leave during off-season, and did not receive social insurance or contributions to their housing provident fund, which helps middle and low-income workers pay for housing. Legally agency workers must be registered for social insurance and employers must make social insurance contributions, the report said.

Agency workers formed more than 40% of the workforce, higher than the a legally-mandated maximum of 10%.

While conditions were much better for regular workers, the report said all workers were subject to long hours and low wages and were sometimes forced to put in more than 100 overtime hours during peak season. In some cases employees were found to have worked for 14 days consecutively.

Investigators also criticised inadequate fire safety in the dormitory area of the factory, lack of protective equipment, absence of a functioning union and management who verbally abused workers.

The report said: "As wages are low, workers must rely on overtime hours to earn enough to maintain a decent standard of living. In spite of that, the factory cuts the overtime hours of workers as a form of punishment for those who take leave or have unexcused absences.

"Amazon's profits have come at the expense of workers who labour in appalling working conditions and have no choice but to work excessive overtime hours to sustain a livelihood.

"Amazon has the ability to not only ensure its supplier factories respects the rights of workers but also that there is equal pay for equal work."

Amazon said it took reported violations of its supplier code of conduct "extremely seriously" and regularly assessed suppliers using independent auditors as appropriate.

It said: "In the case of the Foxconn Hengyang factory, Amazon completed its most recent audit in March 2018 and identified two issues of concern. We immediately requested a corrective action plan from Foxconn Hengyang detailing their plan to remediate the issues identified, and we are conducting regular assessments to monitor for implementation and compliance with our supplier code of conduct."
☛ Want to stay up to date with the news? Sign up to our daily bulletin.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Rights violations found in Amazon supplier factory

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A Chinese factory mainly manufacturing products for Amazon has been involved in several human rights violations, an NGO has alleged. An investigation into a factory run by Hengyang Foxconn supplying Amazon found agency workers employed there had received inadequate safety training, had been denied sick pay and were not receiving mandated social insurance contributions.

# data[].attributes.headline
Nestle - Various questionable business practices

# data[].attributes.subject
Nestle - Various questionable business practices

# data[].attributes.body
- Pushing breastfeeding substitutes in developing nations, leading to increased health risks for children
- Mass privatising water supplies in deprived areas, opposing drinking water as a human right
- Child labour
- Pollution in China

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Child labor, unethical promotion, manipulating uneducated mothers, pollution, price fixing and mislabeling - those are not words you want to see associated with your company. Nestle is the world's largest foodstuff company, and it has a history that would make even hardcore industrialists shiver. We're gonna look at why Nestle has such a bad reputation and whether or not it deserves it.

Introduction

People love to hate, and they really love to hate on big companies - whether or not they have a reason to. I especially dislike it when the latter happens. Companies (big companies included) are the very backbone of our economy, and they often get a bad rep for little or no reason. But sometimes there is a reason, or as in this case, several solid reasons, as we'll see below. Which brings me to the next point: why are we writing this article? ZME Science is a science website (crazy, right?), and this is not strictly science, at least not in the way our regular articles are. But we also write about environmental issues, especially when they affect many of us, and especially when we can make a difference.

Nestle is a Swiss multinational food and beverage company. According to Wikipedia, their products include baby food, bottled water, breakfast cereals, coffee and tea, confectionery, dairy products, ice cream, frozen food, pet foods, and snacks. Twenty-nine of their brands have sales of over $1 billion a year and have over 8,000 brands. They have 447 factories across 194 countries and employ around 333,000 people. They truly are what you would call a giant. They're also considered to be one of the best employers in Europe with six LEED certifications and sponsor numerous activities and sustainable projects. Looking at only these stats, it would seem that Nestle is one of the "good guys"... but then why are they so hated? Let's take it step by step.

Baby Formula and Boycott

We're in the '90s, and this is a sad story about poverty, breastfeeding, and greed. Nestle aggressively pushed their breastfeeding formula in less economically developed countries (LEDCs), specifically targeting the poor. They made it seem that their infant formula was almost as good as a mother's milk, which is highly unethical for several reasons.

The first problem was the need for water sanitation. Most of the groups they were targeting - especially in Africa - didn't have access to clean water (many don't to this day), so it was necessary for them to boil the water. But due to low literacy rates, many mothers were not aware of this, so they mixed the formula with polluted water which put the children at great risks. Nestle seems to have knowingly ignored this and encouraged mothers to use the formula even when they knew the risks. Breastfeeding, one of the most important aspects for an infant, especially in unsanitized areas, was cast aside. Baby formula was "the nearest thing in the world", and this "splendid triumph of care and science" is "so like mother's milk that the tiny stomach won't notice the difference". But the tiny stomach did notice the difference.

"Breastfeeding is unparalleled in providing the ideal food for infants.The optimal way to feed a baby is exclusive breastfeeding for the first six months followed by breastfeeding combined with complementary foods until the child is two years old..." - a 2007 Save the Children report.

Many mothers were able to read in their native language but were still unable to read the language in which sterilization directions were written. Even if mothers understood the need to boil the water, they might not have had the facilities to do so. UNICEF estimates that a formula-fed child living in disease-ridden and unhygienic conditions is between 6 and 25 times more likely to die of diarrhea and four times more likely to die of pneumonia than a breastfed child. Another problem was that mothers tended to use less formula than needed - to make the jar last longer, resulting in many infants receiving inadequate amounts.

But even if the water was boiled, and even if the formula was administered in the right proportion and in the right quantity, it is lacking in many of the nutrients and antibodies that breast milk provides. Breast milk contains the required amount of the nutrients essential for neuronal (brain and nerve) development, and to some extent, protects the baby from many diseases and potential infections. According to the International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN), Nestle used unethical methods to promote their infant formula to poor mothers in developing countries. But it gets even worse.

IBFAN claims that Nestle distributes free formula samples to hospitals and maternity wards; after leaving the hospital, the formula is no longer free, but because the supplementation has interfered with lactation, the family must continue to buy the formula. Nestle denies those allegations... sort of.

"Nestlé takes reports on non-compliance with the WHO Code very seriously and we have endeavored to investigate all allegations brought to our attention, despite the fact that in many cases we are not provided with accurate details substantiating the accusations. This makes it difficult for us to investigate how, where and when the alleged infringement could have occurred. Some of the allegations are several years old before they are brought to public attention, which also could complicate the investigation."

Health experts were concerned from the very start. It's been known for quite a while that bottle-feeding infants in impoverished tropical environments, with limited sanitation and refrigeration, can be a recipe for disaster. But Nestlé's asked that critics should focus on doing something to improve unsafe water supplies, which contributed to the health problems associated with bottle feeding. They also later used this approach to promote their bottled water, using their huge marketing budget to influence people's behavior, while avoiding denying any direct responsibility.

Today, several countries and organizations are still boycotting Nestle, despite their claims to be in compliance with WHO regulations. There's even a committee, the International Nestlé Boycott Committee that monitors their practices. Several universities and student organizations have also joined the boycott, especially in the UK.

More recently, the company has also been under head for a study on breastmilk substitutes in India. India's apex medical research authority asked the company to stop paying study participants, which included pregnant and breastfeeding mothers.

It's not clear how many lives that were lost directly and indirectly due to this aggressive marketing campaign, and of course, Nestle does not claim responsibility for these tragedies. But it was easy for them, as it was easy for everybody to see the risks and the negative effects their formula was having. It was easy for them to save many lives, but they chose the money instead. Profits before children -- check. Let's move on.

Nestle and Water

Few people know it, but Nestle is actually the world's largest producer of bottled water. In fact, they're so keen on their water business (which also involves many of their other products), that they believe water isn't a universal right. Chairman Peter Brabeck-Letmathe said:

"There are two different opinions on the matter [or water]. The one opinion, which I think is extreme, is represented by the NGOs, who bang on about declaring water a public right. That means that as a human being you should have a right to water. That's an extreme solution."

Having access to water is not an extreme solution. It's what we have called a basic need for centuries. Even Brabeck, after the media attack that followed, backed down. He said that he "believes that water is a human right" and "advocates for universal access to safe drinking water". But his actions, as well as Nestle's actions, show that that's just greenwashing.

If you care about the environment, find out the latest news -- join our community!

At the second World Water Forum in 2000, Nestle pushed for making access to drinking water from a "right" to a "need," a defining change. Meanwhile, Nestle drains the aquifers it controls as much as possible, without any regards to sustainable usage or environmental concerns. A recent case is the California drought - an issue without precedent in the past 1,200 years. But Nestle doesn't care. Even as Starbucks recently announced they would transfer their Ethos water bottling facility from California to Pennsylvania, Nestle CEO Tim Brown said: "Absolutely not. In fact, if I could increase [water bottling operations], I would."

Yes, if he could, he'd increase water bottling operations, even though Nestle has been working without a permit since 1988. Inhabitat reports that the company has been sourcing its water from the San Bernardino National Forest without a permit and they've been recently been bumped to the front of the queue for permit renewal (which will take around 18 months), and they can keep working in the meantime as long as they pay a laughable $524 annual fee. Also, California doesn't know how much water Nestle uses, because they have no legal grounds for making the company divulge this information, and Nestle hasn't published any reports. An independent analysis puts all their water usage at 1 billion gallons a year.

Arguably, that's not much when you considering that 500 billion gallons of water that will be saved under Gov. Brown's new water restrictions, but there's something absurd and immoral about a private company using as much water as they want while the rest of the state is facing severe restrictions.

But other areas in the world have it even worse than California.

In the small Pakistani community of Bhati Dilwan, a former village councilor says children are being sickened by filthy water. Who's to blame? He says it's bottled water maker Nestle, which dug a deep well that is depriving locals of potable water.

"The water is not only very dirty, but the water level sank from 100 to 300 to 400 feet," Dilwan says. (source)

Indeed, unsustainable usage of aquifer water can lead to a significant decrease in water levels, and can even exhaust the aquifer. That's right, underground water isn't the inexhaustible source many people believe it to be. In the case of Bhati Dilwan, people are getting sick because if the community had fresh water piped in, it would deprive Nestle of its money source - bottled water under the Pure Life brand. Greedily using natural resources for profits? Check.

But when Nestle isn't trying to privatize water or use it without regards to the environment, it's simply bottling... tap water. A Chicago-based business has sued the company (again), claiming that the five gallon jugs of Ice Mountain Water they bought were nothing else than tap water. It may come as a shock to you, but nearly half of the bottled water in PET plastic bottles is actually from a tap - though Nestle never advertised this. They know what's likely going to happen though, as this is almost a dress rehearsal of a previous scandal. Twelve years ago Nestle Waters was sued over allegation of false labeling, and ultimately settled for $10 million in charitable contributions and discounts.

More recently, Nestle expressed their concern to the city of Flint, Michigan, which was undergoing a massive water crisis at the time -- a crisis which still takes a toll to this day. Meanwhile, the company was using nearby water reserves for their own bottled water products. Nestle was bottling hundreds of thousands of bottles, paying only $200 to use this natural reserve.

Child labor, abuse, and trafficking

Most people love chocolate, but few know the dirty deals behind chocolate production. The 2010 documentary The Dark Side of Chocolate brought attention to purchases of cocoa beans from Ivorian plantations that use child slave labour. The children are usually 12 to 15 years old, and some are trafficked from nearby countries - and Nestle is no stranger to this practice.

In 2005, the cocoa industry was, for the first time, under the spotlight. The International Labor Rights Fund filed a lawsuit against Nestle (among others) on behalf of three Malian children. The suit alleged the children were trafficked to Côte d'Ivoire, forced into slavery, and experienced frequent beatings on a cocoa plantation. In 2010, the US District Court for the Central District of California determined corporations cannot be held liable for violations of international law and dismissed the suit - a controversial decision which has since been appealed. But even if Nestle wasn't legally liable for these abuses, they are, at least morally. But that wasn't the only case of this kind.

A report by an independent auditor, the Fair Labor Association (FLA), says it found "multiple serious violations" of the company's own supplier code. It was reported that Nestle hadn't carried out checks against child labor and abuse. Additionally, many injuries caused by machetes, which are used to harvest cocoa pods, have been reported. Nestle's excuse can be summed up broadly as 'everybody does it':

"The use of child labour in our cocoa supply chain goes against everything we stand for," says Nestle's Executive Vice-President for Operations Jose Lopez. "No company sourcing cocoa from the Ivory Coast can guarantee that it doesn't happen, but we can say that tackling child labour is a top priority for our company."

The FLA reported that Nestle was fully aware of where their cocoa was coming from and under what conditions, but did little to improve conditions. Child slavery and abuse? Check.

Health Threats

In July 2009, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) warned consumers to avoid eating any varieties of prepackaged Nestle Toll House refrigerated cookie dough due to risk of contamination with E. coli O157:H7 (a foodborne bacterium that causes illness). In the US, it caused sickness in more than 50 people in 30 states, half of whom required hospitalization. In particular, one woman had a fatal infection before the batch was reclaimed.

"The fact that our product was implicated in Linda Rivera's 2009 illness and tragic passing was obviously of grave concern to all of us at Nestle," the company said in a statement. "Since then, we have implemented more stringent testing and inspection of raw materials and finished product to ensure the product meets our high quality standards," which sort of makes you wonder - why weren't stringent testing and inspections implemented in the first place?

But this is just a minor incident compared to the 2008 Chinese Milk Scandal. Six infants were killed and 860 were hospitalized with kidney problems after Nestle products were contaminated with melamine, a substance sometimes illegally added to food products to increase their apparent protein content.

In October 2008, Taiwan Health ministry announced that six types of milk powders produced in China by Nestlé contained low-level traces of melamine and were removed from the shelves.

The scandal quickly escalated, with China reporting over 300,000 victims, raising concerns about the security of major food companies operating in China. Two people were executed and several life prison sentences were issued, with the World Health Organization (WHO) referring to the incident as one of the largest food safety events it has had to deal with in recent years.

Nestle denied implication and claimed that all its products are clean, but the Taiwan government linked their products to toxic melamine. As a response, Nestle says it has sent 20 specialists from Switzerland to five of its Chinese plants to strengthen chemical testing.

As with any "respectable" large company, Nestle has been involved in several incidents regarding pollution. A 1997 report found that in the UK, over a 12 month period, water pollution limits were breached 2,152 times in 830 locations by companies that included Cabdury and Nestle. But again, the situation in China was much worse.

While people in the US and Europe are slowly becoming more environmentally concerned and some are opting for more sustainable sources of water, Nestle has moved to another market - Asia. Alongside companies such as Kraft or Shell, Nestle made several environmental violations.

Nestle Sources Shanghai Ltd's bottled water manufacturing plant also made the list for starting operation before its wastewater treatment facilities had passed an environmental impact assessment.

"These are only some of the water pollution violations committed by multinational companies in China, since our website has yet to cover information about air and solid waste pollution," said Ma Jun, director of the Institute of Public & Environmental Affairs. "The parent companies in their home countries are models for environmental protection. But they have slackened their efforts in China."

Another article claims that Nestle capitalizes on China's already-polluted waters to make a good profit, while Corporate Watch highlights the fact that Nestle continues to extract water illegally from Brazil for their Perrier brand. Although Nestlé lost the legal action, pumping continues as it gets through the appeal procedures, something which can take ten years or more.

Ethiopian Debt

In 2002, Nestle made what turned out to be a colossal error: demanding that Ethiopia pay them back a debt of US$6 million. There's nothing wrong with that per se... if Ethiopia wasn't facing extreme famine at the time. For a company that has 29 brands that make over $1 billion a year, asking a famine-stricken country to pay you back 6 million seems questionable, to say the least.

Nestle's claim dates back to the 1970s when the military regime in Addis Ababa seized the assets of foreign companies.

The public roar came almost overnight; with the company receiving 40,000 letters from outraged people, in one of the most famous cases of public opinion beat corporate greed. In the end, Nestle took a U-turn, settling for a partial debt which was also invested in the country's bouncing back from famine. For Nestle, who initially insisted that the compensation issue was "a matter of principle" and that it was in the best interest of Addis Ababa to settle the demand to repair its record with foreign investors, it was a huge moral defeat. For analysts, it was an exciting case which showed that even giants can falter in the face of public opinion.

"This is a welcome result because it shows that Nestle is not immune to public pressure," said Phil Bloomer, a senior policy analyst.

A Deal With Mugabe

Striking dubious partnerships to make a profit seems to be a recurring theme. The Swiss multinational made a deal with the wife of the infamous dictator from Zimbabwe Robert Mugabe, buying 1 million liters of milk a year from a farm seized from its rightful owners by Grace Mugabe

Grace has taken over at least six of Zimbabwe's most valuable white-owned farms since 2002, building a farming empire from illegally confiscated farms, which led to an international boycott, as well as EU and US sanctions. She is known for her ridiculously lavish lifestyle, which includes overseeing the construction of two luxuriant castles. In 2014, she was given a doctorate diploma only three months after signing up for the program. Nestle went forward with the deal though, even as the country's agriculture-based economy was collapsing and inflation was reaching unheard of levels.

Price Fixing

In Canada, the Competition Bureau raided the offices of Nestlé Canada (along with those of Hershey Canada Inc. and Mars Canada Inc) in an investigation on price fixing. Nestlé and the other companies were subject to class-action lawsuits and ultimately settled for $9 million, without actually admitting liability. Furthermore, former president and chief executive officer of Nestle Canada is facing criminal charges.

In the US, another, larger trial was rejected, because even though it was plausible that the same thing happened in the US, there was no clear evidence of any foul play. The suspicion remained however and still lingers with the company.

Promoting Unhealthy Food and Mislabeling

That Nestle is promoting unhealthy food should come as no surprise, but the level at which they operate it is simply staggering. A recent report by the UK Consumers Association claims that 7 out of the 15 breakfast cereals with the highest levels of sugar, fat, and salt were Nestle products.

"Nestlé claims to be 'the world's leading nutrition, health, and wellness company', but when it comes to food marketing to kids, Nestlé is a laggard, not a leader," said CSPI nutrition policy director Margo G. Wootan.

Nestle dismissed all responsibility in promoting healthy food. To pour even more salt in the foods wound, mister Brabeck came out with a dismissive interview in the Telegraph, claiming that he is not obese yet 'every morning I have a tablet of dark chocolate as my breakfast' and that it is the perfect balance and contains everything he needs for the day. Hey, after all, who would actually think that Nestle's cereals are healthy, right?

But while Nestle's labels aren't simply misleading, they have also been downright false. In November 2002, police ordered Nestle Colombia to decommission 200 tons of imported powdered milk, because they were falsely relabeled, not only as a different, local brand, but also with a different production date. A month later another 120 tons suffered the same fate, causing uproar among the Colombian population.

Nestle bringing old powdered milk from a different country and labeling as local and new is not only unethical and illegal, but it poses health hazards for consumers.

Drawing the Line

All major companies have incidents, accidents and scandals. When you have so many people working for you, it's virtually impossible to maintain a clean sheet. Someone will eventually screw up, someone will eventually do something they should. As I was preparing to write this article, a friend actually asked me if other companies don't have a similar record, and advised me to look at Mars, for example. What I found was that Mars and other big companies have indeed had their share of scandals (sometimes the same ones as Nestle), but not nearly on the same scale. Nestle has shown, time and time again, that they have few ethics and little interest in a real social responsibility. From promoting their formula to uneducated African mothers to lying about production dates, to using water without a permit to dealing with ruthless dictators, they have often gone the extra mile to make an extra profit - even when the extra mile meant hurting people, directly or indirectly.

If you care about the environment, find out the latest news -- join our community!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why Nestle is one of the most hated companies in the world

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Child labor, unethical promotion, manipulating uneducated mothers, pollution, price fixing and mislabeling - those are not words you want to see associated with your company. Nestle is the world's largest foodstuff company, and it has

# data[].attributes.headline
Chocolate companies facing child slavery lawsuit

# data[].attributes.subject
Chocolate companies facing child slavery lawsuit

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Eight children who claim they were used as slave labour on cocoa plantations in Ivory Coast have launched legal action against the world's biggest chocolate companies. They accuse the corporations of aiding and abetting the illegal enslavement of "thousands" of children on cocoa farms in their supply chains.

Nestlé, Cargill, Barry Callebaut, Mars, Olam, Hershey and Mondelēz have been named as defendants in a lawsuit filed in Washington DC by the human rights firm International Rights Advocates (IRA), on behalf of eight former child slaves who say they were forced to work without pay on cocoa plantations in the west African country.

The plaintiffs, all of whom are originally from Mali and are now young adults, are seeking damages for forced labour and further compensation for unjust enrichment, negligent supervision and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

It is the first time that a class action of this kind has been filed against the cocoa industry in a US court. Citing research by the US state department, the International Labour Organization and Unicef, among others, the court documents allege that the plaintiffs' experience of child slavery is mirrored by that of thousands of other minors.

Ivory Coast produces about 45% of the global supply of cocoa, a core ingredient in chocolate. The production of cocoa in west Africa has long been linked to human rights abuses, structural poverty, low pay and child labour.

A sign warns against child labour in cocoa production in Ghana. Photograph: jbdodane/Alamy

A central allegation of the lawsuit is that the defendants, despite not owning the cocoa farms in question, "knowingly profited" from the illegal work of children. According to the submissions, the defendants' contracted suppliers were able to provide lower prices than if they had employed adult workers with proper protective equipment.

The lawsuit also accuses thecompanies - whose industry body is the World Cocoa Foundation - of actively misleading the public in the voluntary 2001 Harkin-Engel Protocol, characterised by the complainants as promising to phase out some child labour ("the worst forms", in the protocol's words).The original deadline for achieving certain standards was 2005. In 2010, a follow-up framework of action for Ivory Coast and Ghana spoke of aiming for "a significant reduction" in the worst forms by 2020.

In the legal claim, all eight plaintiffs describe being recruited in Mali through trickery and deception, before being trafficked across the border to cocoa farms in Ivory Coast. There, they were forced to work - often for several years or more - with no pay, no travel documents and no clear idea of where they were or how to get back to their families.

The court papers allege that the plaintiffs, all of whom were under 16 years old at the time of their recruitment, worked on farms in major cocoa-producing areas of the country. The defendants' apparent influence in these markets is described as "dominant" by the plaintiffs' counsel.

The lawsuit claims one plaintiff wasonly 11 years old when a local man in his home town of Kouroussandougou, Mali, promised him work in Ivory Coast for 25,000 CFA francs (£34) a month. The legal documents allege that the boy worked for two years without ever being paid, often applying pesticides and herbicides without protective clothing.

The documents claim another child named as a plaintiff in the suit had visible cuts on his hands and arms from machete accidents. Speaking of his experience of forced labour between 2009 and 2011, he recalls being constantly bitten by insects. As with most of the plaintiffs, he claims in the lawsuit that he was promised payment after the harvest, but it never came.

Many of the plaintiffs quoted in the court documentsreport being fed little and working long hours. Often, they claim they were kept alone or isolated from other child workers, who spoke different dialects.

Police checks during an operation to rescue children from child traffickers in Aboisso, Ivory Coast. Photograph: Luc Gnago/Reuters

During field work for this case, the plaintiffs' legal team say that they routinely found children using machetes, applying chemicals and undertaking other hazardous tasks on cocoa plantations that were producing for one or more of the defendants.

As well as being morally repugnant, such abuses against children represent a "humanitarian disaster" as they contribute to Ivory Coast's ongoing poverty, the court papers state. The widespread use of child slavery is also credited by the plaintiffs for causing "long-term mental and physical trauma".

The case documentation maintains that the defendants are responsible for developing the entire cocoa production system of Ivory Coast. As key participants in this "venture", it is claimed that they either knew or should have known about the "systematic" use of child labour.

The case is being brought under the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2017. IRA is currently involved in a separate complaint filed under the Alien Tort Statute against Nestlé and Cargill.

In a statement Cargill said: "We are aware of the filing and while we cannot comment on specifics of this case right now, [the company wants] to reinforce we have no tolerance for child labor in cocoa production. Children belong in school. They deserve safe living conditions and access to good nutrition."

Nestlé said that the lawsuit "does not advance the shared goal of ending child labor in the cocoa industry" and added, "child labor is unacceptable and goes against everything we stand for. Nestlé has explicit policies against it and is unwavering in our dedication to ending it. We remain committed to combatting child labor within the cocoa supply chain and addressing its root causes as part of the Nestlé Cocoa Plan and through collaborative efforts."

Responding to news of the lawsuit, a Mars spokesperson said: "We don't comment on any possible pending litigation."

Mondelēz said it did not wish to comment.

Barry Callebaut said it has committed to eradicating child labour from its supply chain by 2025. "Every year we publish the progress we have made against this target in our Forever Chocolate progress report," it said.

An Olam spokesperson said that the company has a zero-tolerance policy for forced or slave labour in their supply chain. "If we were to identify any instances, we would immediately take action which includes notifying the appropriate authorities," they said.

A spokesperson for Hershey said: "We understand and agree with the concerns about the heartbreaking instances of child and forced labor. Hershey does not tolerate child or forced labor in our supply chain. These human rights violations have no place in the global cocoa industry, and we are committed to ending it. Effectively eliminating human rights violations and addressing the underlying issue of poverty that is the root cause of these labor violations requires significant investment and intervention on the ground in West Africa, not in the courts.

"We have worked hard over the past several years to implement meaningful programs and work with our cocoa suppliers and West African governments to combat these issues and use our influence to make a positive impact."

This article was amended on 19 February 2021. An earlier version said that in 2001 cocoa companies promised to "phase out" child labour. For avoidance of doubt, the words "phase out" were those of the complainants in the legal case.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Mars, Nestlé and Hershey to face child slavery lawsuit in US

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Chocolate companies are among the defendants named in a lawsuit brought by former child workers in Ivory Coast