This Indigenous Peoples’ Day, we are reflecting on the steadfast nonviolent struggle of the indigenous Ogoni people in Nigeria and the human rights and environmental abuse they have suffered at the hands of the Nigerian government and Shell (Royal Dutch Shell’s subsidiary Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria (SPDC)).
No, Mars doesn’t have to tell you their chocolate was made using slave labor. But, can consumer protection laws be used to stop corporations from committing human rights abuses? Despite setbacks, over the past twenty years creative human and civil rights attorneys have had some success using consumer protection laws to compel corporate transparency related to supply chain labor exploitation.
Part I of this blog analyzed the extraterritorial application of the “Hot Goods” provision of the FLSA). This post discusses whether the remaining provisions of the FLSA can be applied overseas. The short and sweet answer is rarely. The extraterritorial application of the FLSA is technically not prohibited, but its usability depends on very narrow facts. To better understand the FLSA’s extraterritorial application, we need to dig into its history.
This blog post is Part I of a two-part series exploring the viability of using the FLSA’s “Hot Goods” provision as a tool to increase accountability for egregious labor violations in supply chains. Here at CAL, we focus on international supply chains primarily, but we start this post with an overview of how the “Hot Goods” provision has been applied within the US. Next, we look at the possibility of extraterritorial application to hold actors in international supply chains accountable.
Just under a month ago, my friend Ola Bini was arrested at the airport Quito, Ecuador. Ola, a man whose name inconveniently sounds like “hello” in his adopted home, is a data privacy advocate and widely-recognized tech savant. Sometimes he paints his nails black and he likes that really terrible, dry science fiction--the kind where it’s all science and no character development. But I can forgive him that because he’s a sweet person, generous with his time and expertise, and a zealous but ethical advocate for the human right to privacy.
When I describe CAL’s work to other millennial lawyers, they often tell me “I’m just not that creative.” But these self-identified uncreatives spend their days solving complex problems in sophisticated, nuanced ways. Is this intelligence, but not creativity? What is creativity anyway, and are we born with it, or not?
CAL creates outside-the-box legal mechanisms that give motivated individuals the ability to promote human rights norms by enforcing their own rights.
I knew Charity, the Legal Director and co-founder of CAL, professionally for years. During law school, I spent a summer in DC for an internship, and one night I caught a glimpse of what would become CAL. Charity and some of her law school friends (one of whom would be CAL’s other co-founder) were sitting around brainstorming ideas for legal innovations for corporate accountability.
14 manufacturers. 178 factories across the globe. New rights for thousands of workers and affected communities. This is the initial result of Corporate Accountability Lab’s new test case, showing the potential to revolutionize the way companies do business, and to benefit millions of workers and affected communities producing for the US market.
This week, the AP reported that an estimated one million people, mostly Chinese Muslims, were being held in just one of multiple internment camps in the Xinjiang region of China, and producing sportswear for the US market. Here we lay out four key facts about this case that show how “business as usual” has failed to protect workers and the environment on a massive scale.