Forced labour: the legal gap that costs Switzerland an extra tariff

On 12 March the United States opened an investigation under Section 301 of the Trade Act. On 2 June it published the findings: Switzerland is among the sixty countries deemed non-compliant. On 23 July Washington announced an additional tariff of 12.5 per cent on Switzerland, against the 10 per cent applied to the European Union.

The two-and-a-half point difference has a specific explanation. Switzerland has no law that explicitly bans the import of goods produced with forced labour.

The International Labour Organization defines forced labour as any work or service exacted from a person under the threat of a penalty and for which that person has not offered themselves voluntarily.

What the Confederation does and does not do

Switzerland has ratified the main international conventions on labour and human rights. A draft law is being prepared, but it would cover only around thirty large companies.

The government defends the current approach. It argues that the Swiss method focuses on prevention and on tackling causes within supply chains, and that US industry suffers no damage from this practice.

Economiesuisse points out that Swiss companies are already subject to broad non-financial reporting obligations, which include due diligence on human rights risks in supply chains.

The point is that reporting is not a ban. An obligation to disclose a risk does not stop the goods entering, whereas an import law would.

Dorothée Baumann-Pauly, a professor at the University of Geneva, names the three most exposed import sectors. They are critical minerals and gold, fish products, and agricultural products that depend on migrant labour.

The list of goods at risk includes fish in supermarkets, pet food, hazelnuts and rose petals from Turkey, Egyptian jasmine and sugar from India. These are products found in the weekly shop, not rare commodities.

The American tariff is a form of commercial pressure, and the investigation that preceded it should be read the same way. It remains the case, however, that people working under coercion along those supply chains are protected by neither of the two measures under discussion.