- Volkswagen (VW) in 2023 commissioned a deeply flawed audit at a plant in China’s Xinjiang province operated by a subsidiary of Volkswagen’s joint venture with SAIC, a Chinese state-owned carmaker.
- Although the audit found “no indications” of forced labor, audit manager Markus Löning, Germany’s former commissioner for human rights, conceded that the basis for the audit had been a review of documentation rather than interviews with workers, which he said could be “dangerous.”
- Löning added that “even if they [Chinese workers] would be aware of something [like forced labour], they cannot say that in an interview.”
- The NGO Human Rights Watch says that “the Chinese government’s pervasive surveillance and repression in Xinjiang means audits cannot credibly verify whether the facilities in the region are free from forced labor”.–
Volkswagen should inform shareholders at its May 29, 2024 annual general meeting how the company plans to eliminate Uyghur forced labor in its operations and supply chains, Human Rights Watch and the European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights (ECCHR) said today.
Since 2017, the Chinese government has perpetrated crimes against humanity in the northwestern Xinjiang region and subjected Uyghurs and other Turkic communities to forced labor inside and outside the region. Aluminum and other key materials used in car manufacturing are produced in Xinjiang by companies with links to government forced labor programs.
“Volkswagen’s ‘In China, for China’ strategy shouldn’t mean complicity in forced labor,” said Jim Wormington, senior researcher and advocate for corporate accountability at Human Rights Watch. “Shareholders should call upon Volkswagen to ensure that it will apply robust measures to tackle Uyghur forced labor in its supply chains.”
Volkswagen, which manufactures cars in China through joint ventures with Chinese carmakers, is failing to adequately investigate potential links between its supply chains in China and forced labor. The company in 2023 also commissioned a deeply flawed audit at a plant in Xinjiang operated by a subsidiary of Volkswagen’s joint venture with SAIC, a Chinese state-owned carmaker. The Chinese government’s pervasive surveillance and repression in Xinjiang means audits cannot credibly verify whether the facilities in the region are free from forced labor.
Volkswagen sells one in three of its cars in China. Volkswagen’s chief executive, Oliver Blume, on April 24 described China as the company’s “second home market.” Blume also announced the company’s updated “In China, for China” strategy, which includes expanded partnerships with Chinese car manufacturers, reduced manufacturing costs, and ambitious sales targets.
Volkswagen said in December 2023 that an audit overseen by Markus Löning, Germany’s former commissioner for human rights, found “no indications” of forced labor at the Xinjiang joint venture plant, which is used to road test cars assembled elsewhere in China. Löning conceded, however, that the basis for the audit had been a review of documentation rather than interviews with workers, which he said could be “dangerous.” He also said that “even if they [workers] would be aware of something, they cannot say that in an interview.”
Following the release of the audit, the German newspaper Handelsblatt on February 14 alleged that a contractor of a SAIC-Volkswagen Xinjiang subsidiary had used Uyghur forced labor during the construction of a Xinjiang test track, which was completed in 2019. In response, Volkswagen said that the 2023 audit of the Xinjiang plant did not include the test track, but that “to date, we have had no indications of human rights violations in connection with the test site.”
Volkswagen also said in February that it is “currently in talks with the non-controlled joint venture SAIC-Volkswagen regarding the future direction of the JVs [joint ventures] business activities in Xinjiang Province. Various scenarios are currently being examined intensively.” Shareholders should ask Volkswagen about the outcome of those discussions and push for the company to end its joint venture operations in Xinjiang.
The production of key materials for car manufacturing in Xinjiang also creates a risk that Volkswagen is sourcing products or materials linked to forced labor, both in factories across China and globally. Nearly 10 percent of the world’s aluminum, for example, is produced in Xinjiang before being shipped out, melted down, and made into products and parts used by car manufacturers and other industries. Aluminum producers in Xinjiang, and in the coal mines and coal plants that supply them, have participated in coercive labor transfers, a form of state-imposed forced labor.
In June 2023, ECCHR filed a complaint with the Federal Office for Economic Affairs and Export Control (Bundesamt für Wirtschaft und Ausfuhrkontrolle, BAFA), the German government authority overseeing the country’s Supply Chain Act. The complaint contends that Volkswagen, BMW, and Mercedes-Benz are violating their obligations under the law by failing to adopt appropriate measures to identify and prevent the risks of state-imposed forced labor in their supply chains. The BAFA has not yet responded publicly to the complaint.
Volkswagen in January told United States customs officials that a small electronic part was produced by a sub-supplier listed by US authorities in December 2023 as linked to Uyghur forced labor. US customs officials impounded vehicles containing the part while Volkswagen replaced it. Human Rights Watch asked Volkswagen on May 22 whether it has removed the part in vehicles sold outside the US but did not receive a response. A US Senate Finance Committee report in May found that Volkswagen had previously investigated the sub-supplier in 2020 and 2022 but found no connections to its supply chain.
Volkswagen is applying inadequate oversight to the supply chains of its Chinese joint ventures, such as SAIC-VW, which primarily manufacture cars for sale in China, the organizations said. Volkswagen contends that, under Germany’s supply chain law, it is not legally required to address human rights impacts in SAIC-VW’s supply chain because its joint venture agreement cedes operational control to SAIC.
Volkswagen in November 2023 told Human Rights Watch that the company “assumes responsibility … to use its leverage over its Chinese joint ventures to address the risk of human rights abuses.” But when asked about potential links between SAIC-Volkswagen and an aluminum producer in Xinjiang, Volkswagen responded: “We have no transparency about the supplier relationships of the non-controlled shareholding SAIC-Volkswagen.”
Volkswagen’s updated China strategy continues to rely on joint ventures and includes partnerships with SAIC and Chinese electric carmaker XPENG. ECCHR’s complaint said that cars manufactured by joint ventures should be considered as being part of Volkswagen’s supply chain, and therefore fall within the scope of its due diligence obligation under the German Supply Chain Act. Human Rights Watch asked Volkswagen on May 22 what steps it will take to ensure that strong human rights and responsible-sourcing standards apply to all current and future joint venture operations in China, but did not receive a reply.
“Volkswagen can’t simply wash its hands of responsibility for its Chinese joint ventures in full knowledge of the risks of forced labor,” said Chloé Bailey, senior legal advisor at ECCHR. “Shareholders should ask Volkswagen how it is responding to increased scrutiny over its operations in China and what steps it is taking to comply with its obligations under the German Supply Chain Act.”
Should we be surprised about this coming from volks?
Not sure what you’re referring to exactly. VW is saying they can’t comply with the new law because China is not transparent enough. Sounds like that’s the truth.
Would you expect them to simply stop doing business in China as a result of this lack of transparency?
Yes, that’s exactly what I expect. If you can’t verify with 100% certainty that your supply chain isn’t using slave labor, then you stop using that supply chain. And if that costs the company an entire market, or even causes the company to fail, then so be it.
I was thinking about this comment, far too often the argument is "what could they do if they aren’t getting the help from the Chinese government " etc, and it’s all shit. If we were buying something from a little boutique one person seller and we found out that somewhere in the process of making it they used slave labour we would all rightfully kick off. So why do massive companies, who could do much much more, get a free pass yet we hold individuals up to a much higher standard.
I wonder how many manufacturers can currently manage that.
They all could manage that, as they are already managing similar attestation requirements from suppliers e.g. ISO 9000-family controls.
They have been already managing that for a long time. Independent audits are common - except in a few countries.
Yeah I think I agree. The law should be: if you can’t positively confirm it’s clean, you can’t use it.
We should have standards for the treatment of people, and strive not to participate in or reward those who treat people in unacceptable ways.
If we have to take on some difficulty for that, so be it. Maybe if our difficulty gets to the point where I’m hungry, I’ll choose differently. But until then I’m willing to take a break from this or that car brand until they can figure out ethical sourcing.
I do think, to whatever extent possible, the change should be implemented smoothly. Maybe a rapidly-growing tariff on such goods for a few years, followed by a ban on their import, instead of an immediate ban on the import.
It’s not good for a country to create an unfair marketplace. And it is an unfair marketplace when rules which acutely affect only certain people drastically for the good of all, are implemented too quickly to adapt to without major setbacks.
Just saying it should be phased in, to minimize local economic tearing.
Agreed. In essence, the cost of doing business is ensuring your supply chain is lawful and morally sound. This lack of respect for humanity as a practice runs rampant because capitalism calls for nothing less than infinite growth and ever increasing profit. Imo, if you can’t afford to do business humanely, you shouldn’t be allowed to be in business.
Yeah I think I agree. The law should be: if you can’t positively confirm it’s clean, you can’t use it.
We should have standards for the treatment of people, and strive not to participate in or reward those who treat people in unacceptable ways.
Totally agree.
It’s not good for a country to create an unfair marketplace. And it is an unfair marketplace when rules which acutely affect only certain people drastically for the good of all, are implemented too quickly to adapt to without major setbacks.
Just saying it should be phased in, to minimize local economic tearing.
Totally disagree.
Fines/tariffs/etc. are just cost of doing business for big business. Slowly enforcing regulation gives companies time to hedge, shuffle, and deflect without actually doing anything. Consequences should be hard and fast. Economies be damned. If an economy can’t stand on its own without companies acting ethically, or with them being punished for it, then it shouldn’t stand at all.
These aren’t “consequences”. These are new rules we’re imposing on good people.
The fact you view this as a war between you and the companies being regulated means I hope you are never a regulator. You see it as an operation to take them down. That’s fucked up.
Wait. We’re talking about making sure a company isn’t using slave labor in their supply chain, and creating consequences for them doing so. And that’s a problem for you? You think it’s fucked up that a company forced to abide by rules preventing them from using slave labor?
I’ve already explained my position and you’ve already demonstrated an unwillingness to interpret what I say generously. You’ll get no more conversation with me until you stop trying to trap me.
VW can demand transparency (e.g. access to supply chain facilities by 3rd party auditors) as a prerequisite to doing business with a partner company. It is absolutely standard to demand that business partners have had 3rd party audits to prove they comply with laws and regulations. This is not some insane ask, this is everyday stuff in the business world.
If a company can’t or won’t get an auditor to validate that they comply with PCI-DSS, for instance, they’re not going to be signed on for processing payment card information by other companies.
And slave labor is a tad bit worse than retaining too many data fields in a credit card for too many days.
It’s so easy to work around an audit. Companies lie. Auditors are being bribed. Everything is based on trust.
True, but it is far better than just saying, “well we called but no one picked up welpguesstheresnothingwecando!”
This will happen in every industry. There’s no ethical consumption under our current system because there’s no way to track where resources, materials, items come from, who made them, and how their workers are being treated.
Edit: I just remembered the story from the last year Or two where they found all those kids working in meat plants in the USA. Slavery and other unethical practices happen globally. I wish there was better ways to stop it. I’m glad people are talking about it and hopefully it leads to better outcomes in the future
there’s no way tovtrack where resources, material, items come from, who made them
Independent audits are done -they are very common in many industry for a variety of reasons- and they work if done properly.
We could even track the provenance of each material through a trustless system like a blockchain to guarantuee a high level of credibility and transparency, just to name a relatively new technology. This is done already.
How would block chain prevent a Chinese supplier from lying about where their bauxite shipments come from? The whole crypto space has shown that scams and fraud aren’t made any less prevalent when block chains are involved
You wouldn’t trust the Chinese supplier (or any supplier). You’d go to the bauxite shipment company and let them register with the network, you’d send independent auditors to their premises, very much as we do it with ibdependent audits nowadays.
We do need to physically access the premises across the supply chain to verify that ‘on-chain personas’ reflect their ‘real’ identities. But no single authority can control the data, we can be quite sure that all transfers of ownership across the supply chain have been authorized by their controllers. Compared to centralized systems, the blockchain provides us a much higher level of transparency and certainty over the fidelity of the information.
