Last year, the US’ Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention
Act
(UFLPA) came into effect, passed with bi-partisan
support.
The passage came after several reports linked many western
brands
to forced labor of Uyghurs — a Turkic people who have been living under
Chinese control for decades. Proponents hoped that the legislation, which barred
the entry of any goods made by companies that had links to the Uyghur homeland
in far-western China, would spur a shift in supply chain transparency and
put pressure on the Chinese government to end its campaign of oppression.
One industry at the center of this was the solar industry. China dominates the
production of solar panels; and an estimated 45 percent of global supply of one
of the key materials, polysilicon, comes from the Uyghur region. In the months
following the passage of the UFLPA, huge amounts of solar panels were blocked
at the US
border
and the industry saw significant financial impacts.
Has the solar industry cleaned up its act? According to a new
report
from Sheffield Hallam University, progress has been slow. While polysilicon
sourcing from Xinjiang is down to 35 percent of global supply, researchers
found that many solar producers are responding to the UFLPA by bifurcating their
supply chains — only sending UFLPA-compliant solar panels and components to the
United States, and those with forced-labor links to other countries.
But perhaps most concerning is that the report's authors found that solar
industry sourcing is becoming “less transparent.”
OK, Now What?: Navigating Corporate Sustainability After the US Presidential Election
Join us for a free webinar on Monday, December 9, at 1pm ET as Andrew Winston and leaders from the American Sustainable Business Council, Democracy Forward, ECOS and Guardian US share insights into how the shifting political and cultural environment may redefine the responsibilities and opportunities for companies committed to sustainability.
“We are seeing companies pretend to sell their Uyghur region factories,” Laura
Murphy,
a professor of human rights and contemporary slavery and one of the authors of
the report, said in a press
statement.
“They change the names of their subsidiaries to obscure their identities or ship
their products through other countries to mask their origin.”
In an ideal world, in which brands took forced-labor risks seriously and acted
proactively, the response to initial reports about forced Uyghur labor — which
came as early as 2018 — would have been met with swift action including the
immediate cutting of ties with suppliers, the shifting of production away from
China, and the sharing of data and sourcing information to allow for
industry-wide action.
Instead, we’ve seen the solar industry not only fail to act, but
even lobby
for weaker enforcement. For Uyghurs and human rights advocates outside of China,
this — along with the bifurcation of supply chains, and the fact that other
major solar importers in Europe and Japan have yet to restrict imports
linked to forced labor — is deeply disheartening.
“It is very possible to create alternative solar supply chains that do not rely
on Uyghur forced labor; but globally, the solar industry has been slow to end
its complicity in the crimes committed against Uyghurs,”
Muetter Iliqud,
head of communications for the Norwegian Uyghur
Committee, told Sustainable Brands® by email.
Meanwhile, in the US, other industries are following the solar industry’s
example by not taking proactive action and seeing their Chinese suppliers
restricted due to sourcing from the Uyghur regions. In June and early August,
two more
companies
were added to the UFLPA’s entity list — printer manufacturer
Ninestar and automotive battery manufacturer
Camel Group — in being banned from importing to
the US.
Camel Group, Asia's largest car battery producer, is a major player in the
growing electric-vehicle industry. It has a joint
venture
with EV sportscar maker Rimac, a major
rival of Tesla; and has
invested
in the Croatian company’s expansion to China.
Meanwhile, Ninestar — the third-largest printer and printer cartridge
manufacturer in the world — sells printers under many brand names, Pantum
and Lexmark International in the US – which is now
affected by the import
ban.
“The move shocked the imaging supplies industry,”
wrote
IITC executive director Tricia Judge. “The full impact of the ban is yet to
be seen, and it will likely unfold over the coming months.”
The solar industry has already paid a steep price for its inaction; but it
doesn’t appear that the printing and battery industries are taking the proper
steps to reduce their risk of sourcing from a region that continues its
unapologetic
assault
on the Uyghurs and their culture.
It seems that, at least when it comes to dealings with
China,
many companies will only take forced-labor concerns seriously when they’re
legally required to. And, soon, that might be the case: A bill that would
strengthen the UFLPA — the Uyghur Genocide Accountability and Sanctions
Act,
which would expand sanctions and increase corporate reporting
requirements
— is currently being considered by Congress.
Europe, too, is debating strict Human Right Due Diligence
regulations
that would require proof that any products imported into the world’s largest
market are free of forced labor.
For the long-suffering Uyghurs, anything that pushes brands to act — and puts
pressure on China — cannot come fast enough. Let’s hope, brands, too, will learn
to more proactively
mitigate
the reputational and financial risks of inaction.
Get the latest insights, trends, and innovations to help position yourself at the forefront of sustainable business leadership—delivered straight to your inbox.
Media, Campaign and Research Consultant
Nithin is a freelance writer who focuses on global economic, and environmental issues with an aim at building channels of communication and collaboration around common challenges.
Published Aug 15, 2023 2pm EDT / 11am PDT / 7pm BST / 8pm CEST