What is forced labor in the fishing industry?

Forced labor in the fishing industry refers to situations where workers on fishing vessels are coerced, deceived, or physically confined into working under conditions they cannot freely leave. It happens across many of the world’s oceans, often far from port and far from oversight. Victims are frequently migrant workers who were misled about pay, working conditions, or their freedom to leave. The sections below unpack how it happens, where it happens, and what companies can do about it.

How does forced labor end up in seafood supply chains?

Forced labor enters seafood supply chains when workers are recruited under false pretenses, trapped by debt bondage, or physically prevented from leaving a vessel. Because fishing often takes place far offshore for weeks or months at a time, abusive conditions can go undetected long enough for the catch to move through multiple processing and trading hands before anyone raises a flag.

The structure of the global seafood trade makes this easier to hide than it should be. Fish caught by one vessel may be transferred at sea to a carrier vessel, then offloaded at a distant port, processed in a third country, and sold under a brand label in a fourth. Each handoff creates an opportunity for documentation to become loose or incomplete. By the time a can of tuna reaches a retailer’s shelf, the original vessel and its crew conditions may be effectively invisible.

Recruitment agencies also play a role. Workers, often from lower-income countries, may pay significant fees to brokers who promise legal, well-paying work at sea. When the reality does not match the promise, workers find themselves in debt to the very people controlling their employment, which makes it very difficult to walk away.

What are the warning signs of forced labor on fishing vessels?

Warning signs of forced labor on fishing vessels include excessive working hours with no rest, withheld wages or pay deductions for food and equipment, confiscated identity documents, physical violence or threats, and no ability for crew members to leave the vessel voluntarily. These indicators often appear together rather than in isolation.

Some patterns show up in vessel behavior rather than crew interviews. Vessels that avoid ports for unusually long periods, frequently conduct at-sea transshipment rather than returning to shore, or operate in areas without adequate monitoring may be doing so partly to limit crew access to help. Satellite tracking data can reveal these behavioral anomalies before any human inspector gets involved.

Social audit frameworks such as SMETA, BSCI/Amfori, and the FISH Standard for Crew are designed to identify these conditions through structured interviews and document reviews. However, audits are only as reliable as the access and transparency they are given, which is why combining audit data with independent vessel monitoring tends to produce a more complete picture.

Which countries and fisheries are most at risk?

Forced labor risk in fishing is highest in distant-water fleets operating in the Pacific, Indian Ocean, and Southeast Asian waters, with countries such as Thailand, Indonesia, Taiwan, and China frequently flagged in international labor and human rights reporting. Longline and squid jig fisheries, which often operate far offshore for extended periods, carry particularly elevated risk due to limited oversight.

The risk is not limited to any single region. It tends to concentrate wherever oversight is weakest relative to the scale of fishing activity. Ports with limited inspection capacity, flag states with low compliance rates, and fisheries that rely heavily on migrant labor recruited through informal channels all raise the risk profile of a supply chain.

Retailers and brands sourcing from these regions are not automatically implicated, but they do face a higher burden of proof when demonstrating that their supply chains are clean. That burden is growing as regulations in major import markets tighten.

Book a demo

How does forced labor connect to IUU fishing?

Forced labor and IUU (illegal, unreported, and unregulated) fishing are closely linked because both thrive in environments with poor oversight. Vessels engaged in IUU fishing often have strong incentives to avoid port inspections, which also reduces the chance of labor abuses being discovered. In some cases, the economics of IUU fishing may depend on unpaid or underpaid labor to stay profitable.

Shared evasion tactics reinforce this overlap. Both forced labor operations and IUU fishing benefit from falsified catch documentation, flag of convenience registrations, and at-sea transshipment that obscures the fish’s origin. When a vessel is already operating outside legal fishing frameworks, extending that lawlessness to crew treatment is a shorter step than it might seem.

This means that traceability systems designed to detect IUU catch often surface labor risk indicators at the same time. Vessel movement patterns that suggest unreported fishing activity in restricted zones may also indicate that crew are being held at sea beyond any reasonable working period.

What laws and regulations target forced labor in seafood?

Several major regulatory frameworks now specifically target forced labor in seafood supply chains. In the United States, the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act and the Tariff Act of 1930 (Section 307) prohibit the import of goods made with forced labor. The US Seafood Import Monitoring Program (SIMP) requires documentation of origin and catch method. In the EU, the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) and the proposed forced labor regulation require companies to identify and address labor risks in their supply chains.

The ILO Work in Fishing Convention (C188) sets international minimum standards for crew welfare, including rest periods, medical care, and written employment agreements. Ratification and enforcement vary by country, but it provides a baseline that social audits and certification schemes often reference.

Enforcement is uneven across jurisdictions, and some authorities are more active than others in applying these rules to seafood imports. That said, the regulatory direction is clear: companies in jurisdictions such as the EU and the USA could face import bans, fines, or legal liability if they cannot demonstrate due diligence on labor conditions throughout their supply chains.

How can companies detect and prevent forced labor in their supply chain?

Companies can detect and prevent forced labor by combining satellite vessel monitoring, social compliance audits, verified crew welfare documentation, and first-mile traceability that links a specific catch batch to a specific vessel and trip. Relying on any single method alone leaves gaps that are easy to exploit.

Practical steps include requiring suppliers to provide VMS and AIS tracking data for all vessels, integrating social audit results such as SMETA or FISH Standard for Crew directly into batch-level records, and cross-checking vessels against IUU blacklists and RFMO registries before accepting product. Automated checks against multiple databases reduce the manual workload and make it harder for non-compliant suppliers to slip through.

Electronic monitoring and human observer programs on vessels add another layer of independent verification, particularly for high-risk fleets operating in remote areas. When combined with satellite analytics that flag unusual vessel behavior, these tools give supply chain managers a much clearer view of what is actually happening at sea rather than what documents claim happened.

What happens to brands that unknowingly sell products linked to forced labor?

Brands that unknowingly sell seafood linked to forced labor could face import bans, product recalls, regulatory investigations, civil litigation, and serious reputational damage. “Unknowingly” provides limited legal protection in jurisdictions where due diligence is now a legal requirement, not just a best practice.

The reputational consequences tend to move faster than legal ones. Media investigations and NGO campaigns have exposed major seafood brands in recent years, leading to consumer boycotts and retailer delisting before any formal legal action was concluded. The cost of that kind of exposure, in lost contracts and brand equity, can far exceed the cost of building a robust traceability system in the first place.

Retailers are increasingly passing this risk back up the supply chain by requiring verified labor compliance documentation from their suppliers. Brands that cannot provide it may find themselves losing shelf space to competitors who can. This is where a platform like SmarTuna becomes directly relevant: it links verified social-compliance certifications and labor-rights evidence to every Raw Material ID, so every product carries auditable worker-welfare proof that buyers, retailers, and regulators can actually check.

Frequently Asked Questions

How do I know if my current supplier documentation is actually sufficient to demonstrate due diligence?

Sufficient due diligence goes beyond having a certificate on file — it requires documentation that is vessel-specific, trip-level, and independently verified rather than self-reported. If your records cannot trace a product batch back to a named vessel, a specific fishing trip, and a corresponding social compliance audit with crew interview data, there are likely gaps that regulators and retailers will increasingly flag. A practical starting point is to map every vessel in your supply chain against publicly available IUU blacklists and RFMO registries, then assess whether your audit coverage actually reaches the first mile of harvest.

What is the difference between a social audit and vessel monitoring, and do I need both?

A social audit examines labor conditions through document reviews and crew interviews at a point in time, while vessel monitoring uses satellite-based AIS and VMS data to track vessel behavior continuously at sea. Each method has blind spots: audits can be manipulated when access is controlled, and vessel tracking does not directly reveal how workers are being treated onboard. Using both together is considered best practice because behavioral anomalies flagged by satellite data — such as extended time at sea or frequent at-sea transshipment — can trigger targeted audits where the risk is actually highest, rather than applying blanket audit schedules regardless of risk level.

Our seafood is sourced through a trader or broker, not directly from a vessel owner. Are we still legally responsible?

Yes — under frameworks such as the EU Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) and the US Tariff Act Section 307, legal responsibility follows the supply chain, not just the direct contractual relationship. Trading through an intermediary does not insulate a brand or retailer from liability if forced labor is found upstream. This means companies need to contractually require their traders and brokers to pass through vessel-level traceability data and verified labor compliance records, and to audit whether those requirements are actually being met.

What is at-sea transshipment, and why does it make supply chain verification so much harder?

At-sea transshipment is the practice of transferring catch directly from a fishing vessel to a refrigerated carrier vessel while both are at sea, rather than the fishing vessel returning to port to offload. This allows fishing vessels to stay out for months at a time, which significantly limits crew access to port authorities, labor inspectors, or any means of escape. From a traceability perspective, it creates a documentation break where the identity of the original catching vessel can become obscured, especially if the carrier vessel offloads in a port with limited inspection capacity. Requiring full AIS and VMS records for both the catching vessel and the carrier vessel involved in any transshipment event is a critical control point.

Are small and mid-sized seafood companies expected to meet the same due diligence standards as large brands?

The legal thresholds under regulations like the EU CSDDD are currently tied to company size, meaning smaller companies may fall outside the direct scope of some mandatory requirements. However, large retailers and buyers are increasingly flowing these requirements down to all their suppliers regardless of size, which means small and mid-sized companies often face the same practical expectations even if they are not directly covered by the law. Starting with a supplier risk assessment, prioritizing the highest-risk vessels and origins in your supply chain, and working toward batch-level traceability incrementally is a realistic approach that demonstrates good faith without requiring enterprise-scale investment from day one.

What is the FISH Standard for Crew, and how does it differ from other social audits like SMETA?

The FISH Standard for Crew is a social audit framework developed specifically for the fishing sector, designed to assess labor conditions on fishing vessels against the ILO Work in Fishing Convention (C188). Unlike SMETA, which was originally developed for land-based factory and farm environments and adapted for fishing, the FISH Standard uses audit criteria and interview protocols built around the unique risks of life at sea, including rest hours during active fishing operations, access to communication, and freedom to disembark. For supply chains where vessel-level labor risk is a primary concern, the FISH Standard is generally considered more fit-for-purpose, though SMETA remains widely accepted by retailers and can be used in combination.

If a vessel is flagged for a potential issue, what concrete steps should a sourcing team take next?

The immediate step is to place that vessel on a hold status — meaning no new purchase orders are accepted against catch from that vessel — while an investigation is conducted. The investigation should include cross-referencing the vessel against IUU blacklists, RFMO registries, and port state control detention records, requesting full VMS and AIS trip data for the relevant period, and commissioning an unannounced or third-party-verified social audit if the vessel is still active. If the concern relates to a specific catch batch already in the supply chain, legal counsel should be consulted on disclosure obligations before that product moves further toward market. Documenting every step of this process is essential for demonstrating due diligence if the issue later draws regulatory scrutiny.

← Back to Knowledge Hub