What happens if a supplier's flag state has not ratified the Work in Fishing Convention?

If a supplier’s flag state has not ratified the Work in Fishing Convention (ILO C188), the supplier is not legally bound by its provisions under international law. That said, non-ratification does not eliminate a buyer’s due diligence obligations or reduce the real-world risk of labor abuses on those vessels. Buyers sourcing from suppliers in non-ratifying flag states may still face regulatory exposure under frameworks like the EU Forced Labour Regulation and the US Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act, regardless of what flag the vessel flies. This article walks through the key questions buyers and procurement teams are asking about C188 gaps and what to do about them.

What obligations does a fishing supplier still have if their flag state hasn’t ratified C188?

A fishing supplier whose flag state has not ratified the Work in Fishing Convention is not directly bound by C188’s minimum standards for crew hours, rest periods, medical care, or written work agreements. However, suppliers may still face obligations under the domestic labor laws of their flag state, port state requirements in the countries where they land their catch, and the contractual requirements set by their buyers.

In practice, port states that have ratified C188 can inspect foreign vessels calling at their ports and detain vessels that fall below the convention’s standards, regardless of the flag they fly. This means a vessel flagged to a non-ratifying state could still face port state control action in, say, a European port. Beyond port state control, many large retailers and brands now require suppliers to meet C188-equivalent standards as a condition of doing business, effectively making ratification status less relevant than buyer contract terms.

Suppliers operating under non-ratifying flags who want access to regulated markets should treat C188 as a practical benchmark, not just a legal one. Audits like SMETA, the FISH Standard for Crew, and Fair Trade USA certifications all reference C188 provisions and give buyers a documented basis for evaluating crew welfare independently of flag state law.

Which flag states have not ratified the Work in Fishing Convention?

As of 2026, C188 has a relatively limited number of ratifications compared to the scale of the global fishing fleet. Many of the world’s most active fishing nations, including China, Taiwan (a separate fishing entity), Indonesia, the Philippines, and several Pacific Island states, have not formally ratified the convention. Some of these flag states account for a significant share of global tuna catch, particularly in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean.

It is worth noting that ratification numbers have grown slowly since C188 entered into force in 2017. Several EU member states have ratified, and the EU has pushed for broader adoption, but the gap between ratifying states and the states that flag the most fishing vessels remains wide. Buyers sourcing tuna from longline fleets operating under flags of convenience or from flag states with limited labor enforcement capacity should treat non-ratification as a supply chain risk signal, not just a legal technicality.

Checking the current ILO ratification status for a specific flag state is straightforward through the ILO’s public NORMLEX database. Procurement teams should make this check a standard part of supplier onboarding.

Does non-ratification increase the risk of forced labor in a supply chain?

Non-ratification of the Work in Fishing Convention does correlate with higher forced labor risk in a supply chain, though it is not the sole determining factor. Flag states that have not ratified C188 often lack equivalent domestic legislation, inspection capacity, or enforcement mechanisms that protect crew from excessive working hours, debt bondage, withheld wages, and physical abuse at sea.

The risk is compounded by several structural factors common in fishing supply chains:

Recruitment debt: Crew members, often from lower-income countries, may pay recruitment fees that create debt bondage before they even board a vessel.
Remote working conditions: Fishing vessels operate far from shore, limiting access to inspectors, port welfare officers, or legal recourse.
Transshipment at sea: Catch transferred between vessels at sea reduces visibility into crew conditions and vessel history.
Document withholding: Some vessels operating under non-ratifying flags have been linked to passport confiscation, a recognized indicator of forced labor.

Buyers should treat non-ratification as a risk amplifier, particularly when combined with other red flags such as flags of convenience, unverified recruitment agencies, or limited port state inspection records. Due diligence frameworks like the OECD Guidelines for Responsible Business Conduct and the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights make clear that buyers share responsibility for harms in their supply chains, regardless of where legal jurisdiction sits.

Book a demo

How can buyers verify crew welfare when flag state enforcement is absent?

When flag state enforcement is absent or unreliable, buyers can still verify crew welfare through a combination of third-party audits, satellite-based vessel monitoring, and social compliance certifications linked to individual fishing trips or batches. The absence of flag state oversight shifts the verification burden to buyers, but practical tools exist to fill that gap.

Third-party social audits and certifications

Audits conducted under frameworks like SMETA (Sedex Members Ethical Trade Audit), the FISH Standard for Crew, or Fair Trade USA provide documented assessments of crew conditions, recruitment practices, and labor contracts. These audits are conducted by independent bodies and produce records that buyers can request, store, and share with their own customers or regulators. Certifications under these schemes are renewable and can be tied to specific vessels or fishing companies.

Satellite monitoring and at-sea data

Vessel Monitoring Systems (VMS) and Automatic Identification System (AIS) data can reveal behavioral patterns associated with forced labor risk, such as unusually long trips without port calls, rendezvous patterns consistent with transshipment, or vessels operating in areas with poor oversight. Electronic monitoring (EM) systems and human observer programs provide an additional layer of on-vessel verification that is independent of flag state enforcement. Buyers should ask suppliers whether their vessels carry observers or EM equipment and request access to those records.

What should a due diligence policy include for non-ratifying flag state suppliers?

A due diligence policy for suppliers from non-ratifying flag states should include, at minimum, a written requirement for C188-equivalent labor standards, documented verification through third-party audits, and a clear escalation process for identified risks. The policy should apply regardless of where in the supply chain the vessel operates and should be reviewed annually against current regulatory requirements.

Key elements to include in such a policy are:

Supplier questionnaire and self-declaration: Require suppliers to disclose flag state, crew nationality, recruitment agencies used, and any existing labor certifications before onboarding.
Mandatory social audit: Require at least one recognized social audit (SMETA, the FISH Standard for Crew, or equivalent) per vessel or company within a defined period, with results shared directly with your procurement team.
Vessel-level data access: Request VMS or AIS track records for vessels supplying your product to verify trip duration, port calls, and transshipment activity.
Recruitment agency screening: Cross-reference recruitment agencies used by suppliers against known lists of agencies linked to labor abuse or debt bondage.
Remediation protocol: Define what happens when an audit identifies a non-conformance. Buyers should have a documented process that distinguishes between correctable issues and immediate disqualification triggers.
Contractual labor clauses: Embed C188-equivalent requirements directly into supplier contracts so that non-compliance becomes a contractual breach, not just a reputational concern.

Some jurisdictions, including the EU and the UK under the Modern Slavery Act, may require buyers to publish due diligence statements that cover exactly these elements. Building the policy now reduces the risk of scrambling when reporting deadlines arrive.

How does digital traceability help close the flag state compliance gap?

Digital traceability helps close the flag state compliance gap by linking verified social and labor data directly to each batch of seafood at the point of catch, making crew welfare evidence part of the product record rather than a separate document filed elsewhere. When flag state enforcement is absent, digital traceability gives buyers an independent, auditable chain of evidence they can rely on.

Platforms that capture first-mile data, meaning vessel activity from the moment a fishing trip begins rather than from the processing plant onward, can attach satellite VMS tracks, observer reports, social audit results, and crew certification records to a unique Raw Material ID assigned at port discharge. This means a buyer can trace any shipment back to a specific vessel, a specific trip, and a specific set of verified labor conditions, without depending on flag state authorities to have done that work first.

SmarTuna’s digital traceability platform integrates social compliance certifications including BSCI/Amfori, SMETA, Fair Trade USA, and the FISH Standard for Crew directly into each batch’s traceability record. Combined with satellite VMS and AIS analytics that can flag behavioral risk patterns associated with forced labor, this gives procurement teams and sustainability leads a practical, evidence-based answer to the question regulators and retailers are increasingly asking: how do you know your crew welfare claims are real?

Frequently Asked Questions

If a supplier switches to a flag state that has ratified C188, does that automatically make them compliant?

Not automatically. Ratification by a flag state means the government has committed to implementing C188’s standards in national law, but actual vessel-level compliance depends on enforcement capacity, inspection frequency, and the supplier’s own internal practices. A change of flag without corresponding changes to crew contracts, recruitment practices, and onboard conditions offers little real-world protection. Buyers should continue requiring third-party audits and vessel-level data regardless of flag state ratification status.

How often should we re-audit suppliers from non-ratifying flag states?

For suppliers flagged to non-ratifying states, best practice is to require a recognized social audit at least annually, with interim checks triggered by specific risk events such as a change in recruitment agency, a new vessel added to the supply chain, or a flag of convenience transfer. High-risk suppliers — those combining non-ratification with transshipment activity or unverified recruitment chains — warrant more frequent verification cycles. Building audit renewal deadlines directly into supplier contracts prevents gaps from opening up between reporting periods.

What are the most common mistakes buyers make when managing C188 compliance gaps?

The most common mistake is treating C188 compliance as a one-time onboarding checkbox rather than an ongoing verification process. Buyers also frequently rely on supplier self-declarations without requiring independent audit evidence to back them up, or they apply due diligence only to direct suppliers without looking at the vessels and recruitment agencies further up the chain. A third common gap is failing to embed labor standards into supplier contracts, which means non-compliance remains a reputational concern rather than an enforceable contractual breach.

Can small or mid-sized seafood buyers realistically implement these due diligence requirements, or are they only practical for large retailers?

These requirements are scalable for buyers of any size, particularly as digital traceability platforms and shared audit programs reduce the cost and complexity of verification. Smaller buyers can leverage industry-wide audit schemes like SMETA or the FISH Standard for Crew, where audit costs are often shared across multiple buyers sourcing from the same supplier. Prioritizing your highest-volume or highest-risk suppliers first — rather than attempting full supply chain coverage immediately — is a practical starting point that builds toward comprehensive due diligence over time.

What specific regulatory penalties could a buyer face if forced labor is found in a supply chain linked to a non-ratifying flag state?

Under the EU Forced Labour Regulation, goods linked to forced labor can be withdrawn from the EU market and banned from import, with no financial threshold exemption for smaller operators. The US Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act operates on a rebuttable presumption basis, meaning the burden falls on the importer to prove goods are free of forced labor — a difficult standard to meet without documented traceability evidence. The UK Modern Slavery Act requires qualifying businesses to publish annual transparency statements, and failure to demonstrate adequate due diligence increasingly attracts regulatory scrutiny and reputational consequences from NGOs and media.

How do I get started if my current supplier contracts have no C188-equivalent labor clauses at all?

Start by auditing your existing supplier contracts to identify which ones lack any labor standards language, then prioritize updating contracts with suppliers from non-ratifying flag states or those supplying high-volume, high-risk product categories first. A practical first step is issuing a supplier questionnaire that requests disclosure of flag state, crew nationalities, and any existing certifications — this creates a baseline risk map without requiring immediate contract renegotiation. From there, work with your legal team to draft standard C188-equivalent clauses that can be incorporated into new contracts and added as amendments to existing ones at the next renewal cycle.

Is satellite vessel monitoring data (VMS/AIS) reliable enough to use as standalone evidence of crew welfare compliance?

Satellite VMS and AIS data are powerful risk-screening tools but should not be used as standalone evidence of crew welfare compliance — they reveal behavioral patterns such as unusually long trips, at-sea transshipment, or port avoidance that signal elevated risk, but they cannot directly confirm crew conditions onboard. The most defensible approach combines vessel tracking data with third-party social audits, observer reports, or electronic monitoring records, so that behavioral risk flags are either investigated or ruled out through direct verification. Regulators and retailers are increasingly expecting buyers to show this layered evidence rather than relying on any single data source.

← Back to Knowledge Hub

What happens if a supplier’s flag state has not ratified the Work in Fishing Convention?