Human Rights Due Diligence: Readiness of Thai Companies

Human Rights Due Diligence Readiness of Thai Companies

Final Report

Presented to The Rights and Liberties Protection Department, Ministry of Justice and United Nations Development Programme: UNDP by Sal Forest Company Limited April 2023

Table of Contents Executive Summary ..................................................................................................... Executive Summary - 1 Chapter 1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 1-8 1.1 Background and Rationale ............................................................................................................. 1-8 1.2 Objectives of the Project ............................................................................................................... 1-9 1.3 Research Methodology................................................................................................................... 1-9 1.4 Expected Outcome ....................................................................................................................... 1-10 1.5 Implementation Plan .................................................................................................................... 1-10 Chapter 2 Literature Review relating to Mandatory Human Rights Due Diligence ............................. 2-1 2.1 Human Rights Due Diligence Overview ....................................................................................... 2-1 2.2 Mandatory human rights due diligence and other relevant legislations ............................. 2-5 2.3 Human rights disclosure guidelines for companies listed in the stock exchanges of multiple countries ..................................................................................................................................... 2-20 2.4 Conclusion ...................................................................................................................................... 2-24 Chapter 3 Results of the Human Rights Due Diligence Readiness Survey of ...................................... 3-1 Companies in Thailand ................................................................................................................................... 3-1 3.1 General information of the respondents .................................................................................... 3-1 3.2 Results of the survey on human rights due diligence readiness of companies ............... 3-29 3.2.1 Human rights policies and practices ...................................................................................... 3-30 3.2.2 Human Rights Due Diligence ................................................................................................... 3-44 3.2.3 Requiring suppliers in the supply chain to respect human rights ................................... 3-60 3.3 Factors effecting human rights due diligence process .......................................................... 3-71 3.4 Conclusion of the survey and study limitations ..................................................................... 3-79 Chapter 4 Results of in-depth interviews to survey ................................................................................. 4-1 human rights due diligence readiness of companies ............................................................................... 4-1 4.1 Large companies .............................................................................................................................. 4-3 4.2 Small and Medium-sized companies ........................................................................................ 4-11 4.3 Government agencies and relevant organizations ................................................................. 4-18 4.4 Experts and civil society sector .................................................................................................. 4-25 Chapter 5 Case Studies on Human Rights Due Diligence in Thailand ................................................... 5-1 Case Study of a Large Company: Thai Union Group Public Company Limited .............................. 5-1

Case Study of a Medium-Sized Company: (Undisclosed) Real Estate Developer .......................... 5-8 Case Study of a Small Company: Chokudomrat118 Limited Partnership ...................................... 5-11 Chapter 6 Policy Recommendations............................................................................................................ 6-1 6.1 Enactment of (new) human rights due diligence legislation .................................................. 6-5 6.2 Building capacity of companies on business and human rights ............................................ 6-7 6.3 Integrating practices into a single standard and increase inter-agency cooperation ...... 6-10 Bibliography .................................................................................................................................. Bibliography -1 Annexes ....................................................................................................................................................Annex -1 Annex 1 Company Human Rights Due Diligence Readiness Survey ..................................... Annex 1-1 Annex 2 In-depth interview template ........................................................................................ Annex 2-1 Annex 3 1st Workshop - Presentation of the draft survey results of human rights due diligence readiness of companies in Thailand and public hearing from the private sector .......... Annex 3-21 Annex 4 Meeting on presentation of survey results on human rights due diligence readiness of companies in Thailand................................................................................................................... Annex 4-1

List of Figures Figure 1 - 1 Three Pillars of the UNGPs ........................................................................................................1-8 Figure 2 - 1 Proportion of scores on information disclosure in each country................................... 2-23 Figure 3 - 1 Types of businesses ....................................................................................................................2-1 Figure 3 - 2 Size of the companies (by annual revenue) ..........................................................................2-2 Figure 3 - 3 Size of the companies (by number of employees) .............................................................2-3 Figure 3 - 4 Size of the companies responded to the survey .................................................................2-4 Figure 3 - 5 Companies listed in the Stock Exchange of Thailand (SET) ...............................................2-4 Figure 3 - 6 Types of industries ......................................................................................................................2-6 Figure 3 - 7 Proportion of export revenue to total revenue....................................................................2-7 Figure 3 - 8 Large companies by types of business ...................................................................................2-8 Figure 3 - 9 Large companies by types of industry ....................................................................................2-9 Figure 3 - 10 Proportion of temporary workers to total workforce in large companies ................. 2-11 Figure 3 - 11 Proportion of migrant workers to total workforce in large companies ....................... 2-11 Figure 3 - 12 Proportion of workers with disabilities to total workforce in large companies......... 2-12 Figure 3 - 13 Proportion of large companies with internal welfare committee ............................... 2-12 Figure 3 - 14 Proportion of workers being members of labor unions to total workforce in large companies ....................................................................................................................................................... 2-13 Figure 3 - 15 Proportion of female workers to total workforce in large companies ........................ 2-13 Figure 3 - 16 Proportion of female management to total management in large companies ....... 2-14 Figure 3 - 17 Medium-sized companies by types of business .............................................................. 2-15 Figure 3 - 18 Medium-sized companies by types of industry ............................................................... 2-15 Figure 3 - 19 Proportion of temporary workers to total workforce in medium-sized companies 2-16 Figure 3 - 20 Proportion of migrant workers to total workforce in medium-sized companies ...... 2-17 Figure 3 - 21 Proportion of workers with disabilities to total workforce in medium-sized companies ....................................................................................................................................................... 2-17 Figure 3 - 22 Proportion of medium-sized companies with internal welfare committee .............. 2-17 Figure 3 - 23 Proportion of workers being members of labor unions to total workforce in mediumsized companies ............................................................................................................................................. 2-18 Figure 3 - 24 Proportion of female workers to total workforce in medium-sized companies....... 2-19 Figure 3 - 25 Proportion of female management to total management in medium-sized companies ....................................................................................................................................................... 2-19 Figure 3 - 26 Small companies by types of business ............................................................................. 2-20 Figure 3 - 27 Small companies by types of industry .............................................................................. 2-20 Figure 3 - 28 Proportion of temporary workers to total workforce in small companies ................ 2-22

Figure 3 - 29 Proportion of migrant workers to total workforce in small companies ...................... 2-22 Figure 3 - 30 Proportion of workers with disabilities to total workforce in small companies ....... 2-23 Figure 3 - 31 Proportion of small companies with internal welfare committee .............................. 2-23 Figure 3 - 32 Proportion of workers being members of labor unions to total workforce in small companies ....................................................................................................................................................... 2-24 Figure 3 - 33 Proportion of female workers to total workforce in small companies....................... 2-24 Figure 3 - 34 Proportion of female management to total management in small companies ...... 2-25 Figure 3 - 35 Types of membership or projects relating to human rights that companies had joined ................................................................................................................................................................ 2-28 Figure 3 - 36 Determination of maximum working hours ...................................................................... 2-32 Figure 3 - 37 Maximum working hours by readiness level .................................................................... 2-33 Figure 3 - 38 Determination of overtime work policy ............................................................................ 2-34 Figure 3 - 39 Overtime policy by level of readiness ............................................................................... 2-35 Figure 3 - 40 Establishment of a human rights working group or assignment of the person responsible for human rights operation .................................................................................................... 2-36 Figure 3 - 41 Declaration of the company’s zero tolerance commitment against harassment, threats, and legal attacks against human rights defenders ................................................................... 2-39 Figure 3 - 42 Measures to promote or support the work of human rights defenders .................... 2-40 Figure 3 - 43 Policy on the consultation with ethnic groups/local communities ............................ 2-41 Figure 3 - 44 Communication of human rights policy to stakeholders .............................................. 2-42 Figure 3 - 45 Provision of training on human rights issues .................................................................... 2-43 Figure 3 - 46 Human risk and impact due diligence, classified by the level of readiness of the company .......................................................................................................................................................... 2-45 Figure 3 - 47 Integration of findings from human rights due diligence ............................................... 2-47 Figure 3 - 48 Assessing the effectiveness and improving human rights operations ......................... 2-48 Figure 3 - 49 Disclosure of human rights performance .......................................................................... 2-50 Figure 3 - 50 Stakeholder engagement process for the design and efficiency development of the grievance mechanism/channel.................................................................................................................... 2-52 Figure 3 - 51 Resource, budget, or consultation support for equal access of stakeholders to grievance process ........................................................................................................................................... 2-53 Figure 3 - 52 Number of companies disclosing their grievance handling process ............................ 2-54 Figure 3 - 53 No retaliation policy against complainant of a grievance or a concern ..................... 2-55 Figure 3 - 54 Privacy protection policy for the complainant ................................................................ 2-56 Figure 3 - 55 Remediation policy for victims of human rights violations ........................................... 2-57 Figure 3 - 56 Disclosure of grievance-related information..................................................................... 2-58

Figure 3 - 57 Type of information related to disclosed grievances, classified by level of readiness ... 2-59 Figure 3 - 58 Taking lessons learned from the grievances .................................................................... 2-60 Figure 3 - 59 Maximum working hours requirements (for suppliers) ................................................... 2-62 Figure 3 - 60 Establishment of an overtime policy (for suppliers) ....................................................... 2-63 Figure 3 - 61 Policy on the consultation with ethnic groups/indigenous people/local communities (for suppliers) .................................................................................................................................................. 2-64 Figure 3 - 62 Receiving grievances from stakeholders (for suppliers).................................................. 2-66 Figure 3 - 63 Disclosure of the process of handling grievances from stakeholders (for suppliers)2-67 Figure 3 - 64 Remediation policy for those whose human rights is negatively affected (for suppliers) .................................................................................................................................................. 2-68 Figure 3 - 65 Human rights risk and impact assessment policy (for suppliers) ................................. 2-69 Figure 3 - 66 Monitoring or inspection process for human rights operations of suppliers ............. 2-70 Figure 3 - 67 Applying findings from assessment of human right operation to support decision to engage/terminate doing business with supplier ...................................................................................... 2-71 Figure 3 - 68 Proportion of the companies that conducted human rights due diligence .............. 2-72 Figure 3 - 69 Proportion of the companies viewing that human rights due diligence will be a matter of necessity within the next 2-3 years ......................................................................................... 2-75 Figure Annex 3 - 1 Proportion of participants in the 1st workshop by industry types .........Annex 3-21 Figure Annex 4 - 1 Proportion of meeting attendees by types of organization ...................... Annex 4-1

List of Tables Table 2 - 1 Summary of the essence of human rights due diligence laws ..........................................2-8 Table 2 - 2 Summary of the essence of law against modern slavery with human rights-related issues................................................................................................................................................................. 2-15 Table 2 - 3 Summary of the essence of international trade laws with human rights-related issues2-17 Table 3 - 1 Sized-based categorization ........................................................................................................3-2 Table 3 - 2 Summary of human rights due diligence readiness survey by size of the companies 3-30 Table 3 - 3 Number of companies with established working groups or assigned person responsible for human rights works, classified by the level of readiness ................................................................ 3-37 Table 3 - 4 Groups of stakeholders to whom human rights policies have been communicated classified by the level of readiness ............................................................................................................ 3-42 Table 3 - 5 Groups of stakeholders receiving trainings on human rights issues, classified by the level of readiness of the companies ......................................................................................................... 3-43 Table 3 - 6 Grievance channels of companies, classified by level of readiness .............................. 3-51 Table 3 - 7 Target groups for the companies’ grievance channels, .................................................... 3-51 Table 3 - 8 Level of significance of factors that promote or affect the human rights due diligence process ............................................................................................................................................................. 3-74 Table 3 - 9 Level of significance provided by the companies for each factor that challenges the process of human rights due diligence ..................................................................................................... 3-78 Table 6 - 1 Summary of policy recommendations for Rights and Liberties Protection Department . 6-2

Executive Summary The Study of Human Rights Due Diligence Readiness of Thai Companies Project is supported by the Business and Human Rights Project of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), the European Union and the Rights and Liberties Protection Department, Ministry of Justice. The goal of the Project is to assess the readiness of companies in Thailand in conducting human rights due diligence. Also, the aim is to survey the opinions and concerns of the business sector in undertaking such process, so that policy recommendations can be developed to strengthen the capacity of Thai companies and enable them to conduct more comprehensive and efficient human rights due diligence.

The main research methodology applied by the research team consisted of literature review on human rights due diligence and survey of human rights due diligence readiness of companies in Thailand through online survey and in-depth interviews; development of case studies; and conducting workshops with stakeholders.

According to the results of the online survey, 57 companies responded, including 43 large companies and 14 small and medium-sized companies. It was found that companies in Thailand have moderate level of human rights due diligence readiness. The majority of the companies (31 or 54.39% of the companies responded) have publicly declared human rights policies and/or public commitments to respect human rights principles or standards based on universal principles or standards. More than half of the companies (29 companies or 50.88%) have established working groups or persons directly responsible for human rights operations. The responsible persons appointed by many of these companies are staff in the position of senior manager or above. The majority of the companies (31 companies or 54.39%) have communicated human rights policies specifically with stakeholders, including provision of human rights trainings for both corporate personnel (executives and employees) and external stakeholders, such as suppliers in the supply chain, employees/workers of suppliers, contractors, customers, and potentially affected communities.

In terms of human rights due diligence, of all the companies responded, 27 companies (47.37%) indicated that they had previously conducted human rights due diligence, while 30 companies (52.63%), have never conducted human rights risk and impact audit. However, the research team found from the survey that majority of the companies with high readiness have never conducted human rights risk and impact audit, or only once for the companies that have done so. However, companies likely to have moderate and low readiness according to the survey 1-1

results, have conducted human rights risk and impact audit more than once. The research team found that such contradictory findings could be caused by the fact that the companies have mechanisms, policies, and procedures necessary to protect human rights, i.e., the grievance mechanisms for employees and the community, etc., but have never conducted human rights due diligence. It may also be the case where survey respondents do not have sufficient knowledge or understanding of the human rights risk and impact auditing process. They may assume that it is the same process as assessing the operational risks of the organization.

On requiring suppliers in the supply chain to respect human rights, it was found that the majority of the companies (30 companies or 52.63%) neither have a policy nor require suppliers to publicly announce policies/commitments to respect the principles of human rights. In addition, many companies do not require suppliers to have policies related to human rights issues, i.e., policies regarding overtime or maximum working hours, consultation with ethnic groups/local communities, stakeholder grievance mechanisms and remedies for those whose human rights are negatively affected. Also, there are no requirement for suppliers to assess human rights risks and impacts. However, some respondents may not know or unable to provide information on how their companies have human rights policies in place for suppliers, hence, resulting in the survey results not fully reflecting the reality.

Moreover, due to the small number of respondents and most of which are large companies (75.44%) or publicly listed companies (85.96%), the analysis of the survey results mainly reflects the human rights due diligence readiness/unreadiness of large companies, which is a limitation of this research.

To overcome this limitation, the research team relied on the results of the in-depth interviews and development of case studies to support the analysis of the survey. Interviews were conducted with 7 large companies and 7 small and medium-sized companies and from which the research team selected 3 case studies. The survey results indicated that large companies that have already conducted human rights due diligence, decided to do so because of the human rights violations within the supply chain, such as child labor, forced labor and trafficking in persons, etc.

The challenge of human rights due diligence for these companies is the expansion of human rights due diligence to cover the entire supply chain, since small suppliers may not yet have the readiness to improve or revise their operational approaches to be in line with human rights risk mitigation 1-2

measures.

At the same time, some large companies have not conducted human rights due diligence because they do not have sufficient knowledge and understanding of the process. Some may still have concerns about suppliers who are not ready to improve or modify labor rights protection practices and do not have sufficient understanding of human rights due diligence processes.

For small and medium-sized companies, it was found that none of the companies have conducted human rights due diligence as the companies in this category primarily focus on their business operation, that is, their income generation. Only when that is sufficient, they will put human rights as the next priority. Furthermore, most of the companies in this category have limited knowledge and understanding as to what constitutes human rights due diligence or they do not realize how their business operation is related to human rights. Therefore, they do not focus on undertaking such process. However, some companies have undertaken human rights-related actions to a certain extent which can be scaled up to human rights due diligence.

Policy Recommendations The research team analyzed and synthesized the findings from the research and formulated policy recommendations for the Rights and Liberties Protection Department to enhance the human rights due diligence readiness of companies in Thailand which can be summarized as follows: 1. Enacting a law of human rights due diligence The research team considered that having a legislation on human rights due diligence applicable to large companies can be an essential mechanism to concretely enhance the human rights operations of companies in Thailand. The law should be based on definite criteria which will be used to screen companies that need to conduct human rights due diligence as required by law. The number of employees or annual revenue of the company may be used as a consideration criterion, i.e., obligated company shall have an revenue of more than THB 1 billion per year (doubling the threshold of "medium-sized enterprises" according to the Ministerial Regulations on the Designation of the Characteristics of Small and Medium Enterprises B.E. 2562 (2019)).

1-3

Furthermore, the law should stipulate measures to incentivize obliged large companies to establish capacity building measures for small and medium-sized companies in their supply chains.

This is to ensure that the human rights responsibilities can be “passed on” throughout the supply chain according to the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs).

These responsibilities include “mentorship” by large companies involving provision of advice and recommendations on human rights due diligence to small and medium-sized companies and companies of all sizes in their supply chains.

For small and medium-sized companies in the supply chain of large companies that are already required to comply with human rights requirements imposed by the buyers, the research team viewed that the enhancement of the implementation of human rights undertakings of these companies should not focus on the enforcement mechanisms of human rights due diligence law like the large entities. The smaller companies within this category have fewer resources and personnel. However, these companies are already familiar with human rights-related operations on some level because they must comply with buyer requirements. Therefore, the companies within this category can provide robust information on human rights-related capacity building measures likely to be efficient for small and medium-sized companies.

For other small and medium-sized companies, the research revealed that these companies prioritize the business operations and they are still unable to link how human rights issues are related to their business operation. The research team viewed that, in its initial stage, the enhancement of the human rights undertaking of the companies in this category should firstly focus on building knowledge and understanding for the companies so that they can recognize the benefits that will be obtained from its human rights undertaking. When such knowledge and understanding are established, the companies can be encouraged to conduct human rights due diligence at a later stage.

2. Strengthening the capacity of the companies regarding human rights operations The research team believed that the companies’ human rights-related knowledge and performance should be strengthened and enhanced. Particularly, this can be done by leveraging guidelines on human rights risk assessment already prepared by government agencies and international organizations, so that the manual can be more widely and efficiently implemented.

Relevant agencies should increase proactive public relations to ensure that the companies can 1-4

widely access the guidelines. Communication should facilitate the understanding of the companies on how the implementation of such human rights guidelines aligns with the sustainable practices or standards that they are already implementing.

Moreover, the research team considered that guidelines and policy documents covering industrial-level risks should be prepared and published. Also, the guidelines and policy documents of the business sector should cover the issues deemed by human rights experts that there are large gaps between international standards and actual implementation in Thailand, as follows: - Policy on human rights defender protection, including non-retaliation policy - Policy protecting people exercising rights to public assembly - Policy on consultation with ethnic groups/local communities For large companies already conducting human rights due diligence or those with extensive supply chain involving multiple suppliers, the research team believed that there should be continuous training courses to develop and upgrade these companies as "mentors". These mentors can provide advice on human rights due diligence to small and medium-sized companies and companies of all sizes in their supply chains. The Ministry of Justice should consider including such "mentoring" statistics as part of the awarding criteria for model organizations on human rights to additionally incentivize the companies that possess the readiness.

The research team agreed with the opinion of human rights experts that there should be more trainings and knowledge/understanding strengthening process for large companies on the topic of stakeholder engagement and effective grievance handling mechanisms. This is especially important in the case of large-scale projects that affect communities or many stakeholders.

In addition, relevant training courses and guidelines for large companies should include meaningful engagement principles and processes; principles and procedures for the protection of free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC); effective grievance handling mechanisms and transparent remediation mechanisms; and heightened human rights due diligence in high-risk areas. The benefits to be obtained from the implementation of these mechanisms should be indicated to the companies, as well as the risks and impact from failing to do as such. There should be examples of best practices and clear practices shall be developed to facilitate better understanding of the large business operators.

For small and medium-sized companies in the supply chain of large companies, and 1-5

having to comply with human rights requirements of their buyers, the capacity building should focus on communication, knowledge development, or creation of human rights courses that are linked to sustainability practices or standards that the companies are already implementing. In addition, there should be more proactive communication and public relations to ensure the companies’ access to more comprehensive human rights readiness/risk assessment guidelines (as well as for large companies), and more comprehensive guidelines should be prepared across industries.

The capacity building of other small and medium-sized companies should focus on communication, knowledge development, or the establishment of courses on legal compliance relating to human rights issues. The communication style should be in an easily comprehensible manner or on issues relatable to the audience, i.e., labor rights, consumer rights. This should include the development of guidelines and practices on human rights-related legal compliance to ensure that companies are ready to progress towards human rights operations beyond the minimum requirements of the law.

3. Integrating practices as a single standard and enhancing inter-agency cooperation The research team viewed that the approach to drive human rights operations by the Human Rights Steering Committee of Thailand is an effort at the policy level which may not be able to enhance human rights operations as efficiently as they should. Therefore, the Rights and Liberties Protection Department should increase the level of cooperation at the operational level with relevant agencies. For example, it may consider expanding cooperation with the Office of Securities and Exchange Commission of Thailand (SEC) to strengthen the knowledge on human rights for listed companies by increasing trainings covering the following target groups and topics: - For large listed companies: the role of “mentor” for the human rights operations by companies within their supply chains - For small and medium-sized listed companies: the business upside of human rights operations (i.e., risk management) and sustainability standard which can affect the company Moreover, Rights and Liberties Protection Department should increase the level of cooperation with other agencies working directly with the entrepreneurs, i.e., the Department of Labor Protection and Welfare, Department of Business Development, Provincial Commercial Offices, as well as local administrative organizations, to expedite and scale up the human rights 1-6

knowledge establishment to cover companies of all sizes, among all industries and provinces.

Stakeholders agreed that the Department of Labor Protection and Welfare should be the focal point to work with relevant agencies because it is the agency with the highest information regarding labor and entrepreneurs. However, on this issue, the research team suggested that the Rights and Liberties Protection Department should co-establish a working group with the above agencies to conduct a feasibility study in developing guidelines to enhance the cooperation between business and human rights.

The research team viewed that the integration of human rights operations between government agencies can reduce confusion or redundancies in the implementation of the business operators. Rights and Liberties Protection Department and Office of the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) should find ways to scale up the utilization of the existing Human Rights Due Diligence Handbook and the Checklist. They may set up an online system for companies to access and evaluate their own human rights due diligence readiness based on the Checklist included in the Handbook, etc.

Moreover, the Rights and Liberties Protection Department should expand cooperation with the NHRC, as the agency with highest information on human rights grievances, in order to connect, disclose, and consolidate human rights information into a single database. The database shall be publicly available, easily accessible and convenient to process (open data) to incentivize business sector to enhance their human rights operations. This provides opportunities for academics, companies and government agencies to analyze the data and assess trends in human rights risks arising from business activities, which can be useful in further developing the organization's human rights operations.

1-7

Chapter 1 Introduction 1.1

Background and Rationale United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) Thailand is supported by the European Union to promote, establish understanding among government agencies and business sector regarding human rights operations in accordance with the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs).

Figure 1 - 1 Three Pillars of the UNGPs

Source: https://shiftproject.org/resources/ungps101/ Under this support, UNDP has launched a project to encourage Thai businesses to develop human rights policies, including conducting Human Rights Due Diligence (HRDD), which is an essential principle of the UNGPs. In the past, Thai companies have limitations in developing and integrating human rights due diligence process into their business operations as some companies considered that the costs of human rights due diligence outweigh its the benefits. In addition, some viewed that the human rights due diligence is an audit to be conducted by an external audit rather than an internal one.

In addition, the Office of Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) requires companies listed in the Stock Exchange to prepare Form 56-1 One Report, which is the consolidation of the 1-8

Annual Registration Statement (Form 56-1) and Annual Report (Form 56-2). The purpose of the SEC is to enhance the reporting of business operations which incorporated the Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) principles, which also encompasses human rights issues. Listed companies are required to prepare and publish the first 56-1 One Report in 2022. Such requirement enhances human rights operations of listed companies to be more in alignment with the UNGPs, which includes the disclosure of human rights due diligence reporting.

Meanwhile, many countries around the world have begun to focus more on human rights due diligence, particularly the European countries. These countries have started to enact laws governing human rights due diligence. The promulgation of such law affects Thai companies as part of the global supply chains. That is, Thai companies need to conduct human rights due diligence to comply with the laws of these importing countries, as well as to cater to the expectation of consumers and investors who have increasingly prioritized human rights issues.

Therefore, integrating human rights due diligence process into business operations contribute to the competitiveness of Thai companies at the international level.

Based on the aforementioned reasons, strengthening the human rights due diligence readiness pursuant to the UNGPs for Thai companies is of vital importance. Hence, UNDP and the Rights and Liberties Protection Department, Ministry of Justice, hired Sal Forest Company Limited (research team) to survey and evaluate the readiness of Thai companies on conducting human rights due diligence. The outcome of the study will be used to formulate capacity building recommendations for Thai companies and to enable them to conduct comprehensive and efficient human rights due diligence, leading to sustainable business operations.

1.2 Objectives of the Project 1) To strengthen the knowledge, understanding, principles and importance of business and human rights of companies/organizations in Thailand; 2) To examine human rights operations and evaluate human rights due diligence readiness of companies/organizations in Thailand; 3) To develop recommendations to enhance the readiness of companies/organizations in Thailand, enabling them to conduct human rights due diligence.

1.3 Research Methodology The research team applied the main research methodologies as follows: 1) Literature review relating to human rights due diligence, containing at least the following details: Laws, rules, regulations, or practices relating to human rights due diligence 1-9

conduct of companies and suppliers in the supply chain, based on the information available both nationally and internationally information; Similarities and differences of the laws, rules, regulations or practices relating to human rights due diligence in each country, as well as the existing gaps.

2) Survey of human rights due diligence readiness of the companies in Thailand through the use of survey forms and in-depth interviews: - Online readiness survey of companies in Thailand - In-depth interviews with companies in Thailand and relevant stakeholders, including: - 7 large companies (from various industries); - 7 small and medium-sized companies (from various industries); - 6 relevant stakeholders, i.e., government agencies, civil society sector, human rights experts 3) Development of 3 case studies based on the findings of literature review and indepth interviews to demonstrate different practices and challenges in conducting human rights due diligence of 1 large company, 1 medium-sized company within the supply chain of a large company, and 1 small-sized company.

4) Organizing 2 hybrid meetings (online and offline attendance) with relevant stakeholders First meeting to present the results of the survey on human rights due diligence readiness of companies in Thailand and also to organizr a focus group meeting to exchange practices, problems, challenges, as well as human rights due diligence recommendations.

Second meeting to present the final results of the research.

1.4 Expected Outcome The final report contains the following content: - Findings from literature review - Practices and human rights due diligence readiness of Thai companies - Development of 3 case studies - Recommendations to strengthen human rights due diligence readiness of Thai companies 1.5 Implementation Plan The period of implementation was 8 months with the implementation plan as follows: 1-10

Activities

1st month

2nd month

3rd month

4th month

5th month

6th month

7th month

8th month

1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 Submit draft and plan of study Literature review relating to human rights due diligence Development of human rights due diligence readiness survey Organize the 1st hybrid meeting with at least 70 stakeholders In-depth interview with relevant stakeholders Development of 3 case studies Submit first draft of the report Organize the 2nd hybrid meeting with at least 70 stakeholders Submit Thai and English final report 1-5

Chapter 2 Literature Review relating to Mandatory Human Rights Due Diligence 2.1 Human Rights Due Diligence Overview The research team reviewed the definition of human rights due diligence as outlined in the UNGPs which is considered to be an international standard for human rights protection. The UNGPs outline Principles 17-22, which provide a framework for businesses to actively pursue human rights issues. Based on those principles, it is expected that business organizations should conduct their business responsibly by adhering to human rights principles to prevent and mitigate losses. There shall be an impact assessment for actual and potential human rights violations, and such impact shall be closely monitored and communicated to the public to ensure that those affected receive attentive care and remedy (National Human Rights Commission, 2018).

The essence of the Principles set out the following HRDD practices for business: Guiding Principle 17 In order to identify, prevent, mitigate and account for how they address their adverse human rights impacts, business enterprises should carry out human rights due diligence. The process should include assessing actual and potential human rights impacts, integrating and acting upon the findings, tracking responses, and communicating how impacts are addressed. Human rights due diligence: (a)

Should cover adverse human rights impacts that the business enterprise may cause or contribute to through its own activities, or which may be directly linked to its operations, products or services by its business relationships;

(b)

Will vary in complexity with the size of the business enterprise, the risk of severe human rights impacts, and the nature and context of its operations;

(c)

Should be ongoing, recognizing that the human rights risks may change over time as the business enterprise’s operations and operating context evolve.

Guiding Principle 18 In order to gauge human rights risks, business enterprises should identify and assess any actual or potential adverse human rights impacts with which they may be involved either through their own activities or as a result of their business relationships. This process should: (a)

Draw on internal and/or independent external human rights expertise; 2-1

(b) Involve meaningful consultation with potentially affected groups and other relevant stakeholders, as appropriate to the size of the business enterprise and the nature and context of the operation.

Guiding Principle 19 In order to prevent and mitigate adverse human rights impacts, business enterprises should integrate the findings from their impact assessments across relevant internal functions and processes, and take appropriate action. (a)

(b)

Effective integration requires: (1)

Responsibility for addressing such impacts is assigned to the appropriate level and function within the business enterprise;

(2)

Internal decision-making, budget allocations and oversight processes enable effective responses to such impacts.

Appropriate action will vary according to: (1)

Whether the business enterprise causes or contributes to an adverse impact, or whether it is involved solely because the impact is directly linked to its operations, products or services by a business relationship;

(2)

The extent of its leverage in addressing the adverse impact.

Guiding Principle 20 In order to verify whether adverse human rights impacts are being addressed, business enterprises should track the effectiveness of their response. Tracking should: (a)

Be based on appropriate qualitative and quantitative indicators;

(b)

Draw on feedback from both internal and external sources, including affected stakeholders.

Guiding Principle 21 In order to account for how they address their human rights impacts, business enterprises should be prepared to communicate this externally, particularly when concerns are raised by or on behalf of affected stakeholders. Business enterprises whose operations or operating contexts pose risks of severe human rights impacts should report formally on how they address them. In all instances, communications should: (a)

Be of a form and frequency that reflect an enterprise’s human rights impacts and that are accessible to its intended audiences;

(b)

Provide information that is sufficient to evaluate the adequacy of an enterprise’s 2-2

response to the particular human rights impact involved; (c)

In turn, not pose risks to affected stakeholders, personnel or to legitimate requirements of commercial confidentiality.

Guiding Principle 22 Where business enterprises identify that they have caused or contributed to adverse impacts, they should provide for or cooperate in their remediation through legitimate processes.

The HRDD practices under the Principles of the UNGPs above are deemed as important milestones and universal standard of human rights operation of the business sector over the past decade. International organizations have integrated the UNGPs, including the HRDD practices into the standard as well, for example: OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) is a guideline recommendation for the business sector on the operation of responsible business across the entire supply chain. The guideline was first implemented in 1976. In 2011, it has been further revised by adding human rights practices consistent with the Principles of the UNGPs (International Labour Organization, n.d.).

Later in 2018, at OECD's Annual Meeting at Ministerial Level, 48 OECD member states agreed to promote and monitor the implementation of OECD Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Business Conduct which is a corporate due diligence guideline for multinational enterprises. The guideline covers all economic sectors and the risks involved in the company's business operations and supply chains, i.e., human rights, labor, environment and corruption issues (OECD, 2018).

The OECD Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Business Conduct had clearly integrated the HRDD practices. With that said, due diligence for responsible business operations encompasses a broader scope than "do no harm". The business sector must have a risk identification process, as well as impact prevention and management process for stakeholders (OECD Watch, 2018). Therefore, a corporate due diligence is not an assessment of the company's risk or investment risk, but rather an assessment of the risk which may pose impact on stakeholders.

ILO Tripartite Declaration of Principles concerning Multinational Enterprises and Social 2-3

Policy Basic principles of the Tripartite Declaration of Principles concerning Multinational Enterprises and Social Policy (MNE Declaration) provide guidance to multinational enterprises, governments, including employers’ and workers’ organizations on labor-related issues, i.e., employment, training, working conditions and quality of life, and labor Relations. Article 10 of MNE Declaration proposed human rights policy guidance recommended for governments, employers’ and workers’ organizations of the home and host countries, as well as multinational enterprises. The policy guidance clearly referred to the UNGPs. That is, adherence to the UNGPs requires businesses, including multinational enterprises, to avoid causing and prevent adverse human rights impact throughout the supply chain. This includes "monitoring to identify, prevent, mitigate and take responsibility for correcting adverse impacts that occur or may affect internationally recognized human rights" (International Labour Organization, 2019).

It is apparent that the UNGPs, the OECD Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Business Conduct, and the MNE Declaration set out the consistent and complementary basic principles for business operation. They also require the business sector to conduct human rights due diligence covering the entire supply chain. However, these standards or guidelines are voluntary and do not have any enforceability. As a result, companies can choose what issues they would like to report or which standards they would like to adopt for the company. Most companies will choose to adopt standards that, according to their perception, they have the ability to comply with (National Human Rights Commission, 2016).

Moreover, albeit the effort of many countries to encourage the business sector to conduct more human rights due diligence, it was found that most companies have not done so sufficiently (The Remedy Project, 2021). A concrete empirical example is the results of the assessment of human rights operations of global companies according to the Corporate Human Rights Benchmark (CHRB)1 for the year 2020. The assessment was conducted among 229 leading global companies in 5 industries with high human rights risk: agricultural products, textiles, natural resource extractions, information technology and communications, and automotive industries. It was found that, 46.2 percent of the global companies were unable to demonstrate if human 1 This is a project to measure the performance of human rights operations of the business sector in accordance with the

framework of the UNGPs. It is currently part of the World Benchmarking Alliance (WBA), an organization that aims to encourage the private sector to achieve their Sustainable Development Goals through the preparation and dissemination of benchmarks on sustainability-related issues.

2-4

rights risks were identified or how human rights risks will be managed in the supply chain (World Benchmarking Alliance, 2020). According to the Social Transformation Baseline Assessment 2022, around 78 percent of global companies scored zero in the indicators related to HRDD (World Benchmarking Alliance, 2022).

With the above situation and the wave of awareness about human rights issues among investors and consumers who do not wish to support businesses that cause negative human rights impacts, the business sector is expected to conduct business with greater transparency and responsibility. Such responsibility is also expected to cover the business operations in the supply chain. Therefore, many countries have begun to consider establishing mandatory measures for business sector to conduct human rights due diligence to prevent and mitigate potential human rights impacts from business operations (The Remedy Project, 2021). The mandatory measures were drafted as a law which was well received by companies, business organizations, and investors, all of whom have begun to focus more on human rights issues.

2.2 Mandatory human rights due diligence and other relevant legislations The research Guiding Principles on Business And Human Rights At 10: Taking stock of the first decade of the UN Working Group on Business and Human Rights (2021) indicates that the UNGPs have caused significant progress in encouraging businesses to conduct business that better respects human rights. In particular, the specification of the guidelines for businesses to identify human rights risks and to make available a guideline to prevent and manage impacts arising from such business operations. In addition, this research suggests that the push for human rights due diligence to be a legislation or mandatory measures, as well as the application of various policy tools by the government to incentivize the business sector to conduct human rights due diligence, will play an important role in promoting business operations that respect human rights.

However, while government organizations, business sector, and civil society sector may have realized the necessity of having laws or mandatory measures on human rights due diligence, the progress in the uptake has been extremely slow. Many countries are very cautious with the development of human rights due diligence legislation as they fear that it will affect the competitive advantage of the domestic business sector (UN Working Group on Business and Human Rights, 2021).

From surveys and exploration of data, the research team found that the progress of the development of laws or mandatory measures on human rights due diligence are mainly carried 2-5

out in European countries. At present, only France, Norway and Germany have promulgated or prepared to implement human rights due diligence laws containing similar material legal principles. That is, most national human rights due diligence laws will stipulate implementation criteria applicable to the business sector. Such criteria include: the business must be domiciled or located in that particular country; the minimum number of employees or sales value; or the company may be required to have available human rights risk management and assessment within its supply chain, as well as to report and disclose operational information to the public.

The human rights due diligence practices shall be in line with internationally recognized standards (The Remedy Project, 2021).

The following is the breakdown of the essence of the human rights due diligence laws of France, Norway and Germany: France: The French Corporate Duty of Vigilance Law (now effective) was developed and is being applied to large companies with at least 5,000 employees in France and/or with at least 10,000 employees worldwide. The companies within this category are required to create a vigilance plan which can identify human rights risks and prevent violations of human rights, health and safety and environmental impact. It shall cover the entire operation of the company, its subsidiaries, contractors and other suppliers in the supply chain. Such vigilance plan shall at least contain the identification and assessment of human rights risks arising from the operations throughout the supply chain. Also, risk management measures are required to be established as well (International Organisation of Employers, 2021).

Norway: The Norwegian Transparency Act (now effective) was developed and is being applied to medium-sized and large companies headquartered or based in Norway, as well as foreign companies offering goods or services in Norway that meet at least 2 out of 3 of these requirements: 1) Have an average of at least 50 full-time equivalent (FTE) employees per year.

2) Have annual sales of at least NOK 70 million 3) Have assets not less than NOK 35 million In this regard, the subjected companies shall conduct human rights due diligence covering the entire supply chain and shall establish mitigation and remediation measures for those affected. The companies shall also disclose the human rights due diligence report, including the 2-6

aspects of risks and negative impacts found from the due diligence and the companies shall have measures to manage such impacts (International Organisation of Employers, 2021).

Germany: The German Due Diligence in the Supply Chain Act (effective in January 2023) was developed and is being applied to companies with at least 3,000 employees in 2023 and at least 1,000 in 2024. This indicates that such law of Germany also expands the due diligence obligation to cover companies of smaller size. Subjected companies must conduct human rights and environmental due diligence within their supply chains, the practices of which shall be consistent with universal standards.

2-7

Table 2 - 1 Summary of the essence of human rights due diligence laws Status Targeted companies

Scope of business activities Human rights due diligence process

French Corporate Duty of Vigilance Law Norwegian Transparency Act Effective Effective Companies incorporated in France and having at Companies located in Norway or offer products least 5,000 employees in its subsidiaries or 10,000 and services which are taxable in Norway and shall employees globally. be within 2 of the following 3 conditions: 1) Have an average of at least 50 full-time equivalent (FTE) employees per year.

2) Have annual sales of at least NOK 70 million 3) Have assets not less than NOK 35 million Covering all business activities Covering all business activities

German Due Diligence in the Supply Chain Act Effective in January 2023 Headquarter, main business establishment, branch office or workplace of the executives are located in Germany and having at least 3,000 employees in Germany in 2023 or at least 1,000 employees in 2024

Covering all business activities

Vigilance plan shall be developed and it shall The human rights due diligence process shall be in The human rights due diligence process shall be in identify risks and prevent violation of human rights, line with the OECD Guidelines for Multinational line with the practices of the UNGPs with advanced health and safety and environmental impact.

Enterprises. practices applied for direct suppliers.

Enforcement/ Penalty

If a company fails to comply with the law, it will The company shall be liable for penalty in the The company is required to submit remediation incur civil liability. Those whose rights were event of non-compliance. plan, failing to do so can incur the maximum fine affected by the incompliance of the company can of EUR 8 million or 2 percent of the annual sales. claim for damages from the company.

Regulation

Steps should be set out for the human rights risk

Requirements on accountability, chart and risk Risk management and analysis system shall be 2-8

Reporting and information disclosure

French Corporate Duty of Vigilance Law identification and analysis, as well as regular supplier risk assessment. Undertake steps to mitigate human rights risks and prevent human rights violation, as well as make available notification and evaluation mechanisms.

Norwegian Transparency Act assessment, impact mitigation mechanisms shall be set out. Implementation shall be monitored and communication with stakeholders affected by the operation shall be undertaken, as well as making available the remediation process.

German Due Diligence in the Supply Chain Act made available. Human rights policy shall be declared, as well as having impact prevention and solution measures and grievance mechanisms.

Vigilance plan and implementation report shall be disclosed to the public

Progress report on the identification process of Report on risk identification, management negative impact, impacts, and risks from human measures, evaluation of such measures for future rights due diligence, impact and consequence improvement (annual report). management measures shall be disclosed (annual report).

Source: The research team collected and updated from The Remedy Project (2021) and International Organisation of Employers (2021).

2-9

Apart from France, Norway and Germany, many European countries have become more active in enacting human rights due diligence laws. For example, in 2016, civil society organizations in Switzerland launched the Responsible Business Initiative (RBI) that sought to push for amendments to Switzerland's constitution so that it includes mandatory condition requiring Swiss companies to conduct human rights and environmental due diligence throughout their supply chains (including those located overseas).

However, the push for such a proposal was objected by the government which proposed that the Code of Obligations and Criminal Code shall be reviewed and revised rather than making amendments to the constitution. The revision should focus on more specific reporting requirements and human rights due diligence obligations, i.e., companies with more than 500 employees in two consecutive fiscal years and with assets above CHF 20 million or sales above CHF 40 million shall prepare a report, that is not a financial report, covering a broader scope. The report shall set out details such as business model, risks relating to social, environmental and governance issues which are identified from the human rights due diligence, as well as the risk management measures concerning such issues. The report shall be published in English, French, Italian or German (International Organisation of Employers, 2021). This requirement will come into force in 2023 (IFLR, 2022).

For Swiss companies engaged in the trading of conflict minerals including tin, tantalum, tungsten and gold originated from high-risk and conflict-affected areas, and companies offering goods or services with suspicion of child labor; such law requires companies to conduct human rights due diligence as well. This requirement is now in effect (Business & Human Rights Resource Centre, 2020; IFLR, 2022; Pinsent Masons, 2022).

Meanwhile, the Netherlands introduced the Child Labour Due Diligence Act in 2019. The Act requires Dutch-registered companies and foreign companies that offer goods and services to Dutch consumers (except for business sector or companies identified by the General Administrative Order as having low risk of child labor) to examine the supply chain operations whether there is any use of child labor. Also, the companies need to make available the management guidelines in the event that child labor is detected in the supply chain (International Organisation of Employers, 2021).

It is evident that while human rights due diligence laws of Switzerland and the 2-10

Netherlands require companies to conduct human rights due diligence in specific areas, i.e., on the issue of child labor, such laws do not cover the entire business sector like the laws of France, Norway and Germany. However, the laws reflect that these countries have begun to prioritize human rights due diligence to a certain extent.

Human Rights Due Diligence Laws of the European Union In addition to the above national-level human rights due diligence laws, the European Union (EU) seeks to establish human rights due diligence law at the regional level as well. The European Commission has developed the Initiative on Sustainable Corporate Governance with the goal of improving the regulatory framework for business operations by companies in the European Union in order to create long-term sustainability. The initiative proposed recommendations requiring companies to conduct human rights and environmental due diligence. In February 2022, more than 100 companies, investors and business associations in the European Union signed a statement calling on the European Union to push forward the implementation of such human rights and environmental due diligence laws. The statement provided that human rights due diligence shall be in line with the UNGPs, covering all types of businesses of all sizes operating in the European Union, as well as expanding its implementation throughout the supply chain (Business & Human Rights Resource Centre, 2022).

Within the same month, the European Commission drafted a proposal for the EU Directive on Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence legislation, which aims to promote sustainable business practices and focus on human rights and environmental issues (European Commission, 2022).

The draft proposal highlights the role of the business sector in identifying human rights and environmental risks arising from business operations, as well as managing, preventing, or mitigating impacts from risks. This role shall cover the operations of companies and suppliers throughout the supply chain. Subjected companies shall undertake actions required under this draft proposal, including: Group 1 - Large EU companies with not less than 500 employees and a net global turnover of not less than EUR 150 million (this group includes approximately 9,400 companies).

Group 2 - Large EU companies in high-impact sectors such as textiles, agriculture, and extraction of minerals industries with not less than 250 employees and a net global turnover of 2-11

not less than EUR 40 million (this group includes approximately 3,400 companies and the law applicable to this group will become effective within two years after the first group).

The draft proposal requires: (1) non-EU companies with a relationship with Group 1 EU companies and more than 2,600 employees; and (2) non-EU companies with a relationship with Group 2 EU companies and more than 1,400 employees, to conduct human rights and environmental due diligence.

In addition to the human rights due diligence laws mentioned above, there are also other human rights-related laws covering specific human rights issues, i.e., child labor law, trafficking in persons laws, or other important human rights issues, i.e., health and safety, nondiscrimination, right to assemble and negotiate. Such laws include international trade laws, according to which many countries ban the import of goods that violate or do not comply with human rights requirements. These laws may not require companies to conduct human rights due diligence, but in practice companies should undertake human rights audit throughout their supply chains to ensure that the business operations of the companies and their suppliers throughout the supply chains are complying with the laws and to avoid trade sanctions, fines, or damage to the companies and their reputations. It also builds investors’ confidence, as well as retains and expands the customer base that prioritizes ethical standards in order to enhance supply chain stability (International Organisation of Employers, 2021). Examples of such laws include: Anti-Slavery and Anti-Trafficking in Persons Laws United Kingdom Modern Slavery Act The UK Modern Slavery Act contains supply chain transparency requirements. It requires the company to be responsible for preventing slavery, forced labor or trafficking in persons that may occur in the supply chain. Companies that distribute goods or services in the United Kingdom and have annual sales of GBP 36 million or more shall produce a report on the process of slavery, force labor or trafficking in persons prevention (every fiscal year). Failing which, the company will be subject to unlimited fines. The report of the company shall be certified and signed off by senior management to demonstrate high emphasis on prevention of slavery and the report shall also be disclosed on the company's website.

California Transparency in Supply Chains Act The California Transparency in Supply Chains Act sets out the minimum requirements.

That is California retailers or manufacturers who receive tax refunds from the State of California, operate income-generating businesses mainly in California, with total annual revenue worldwide 2-12

of more than USD 100 million, are required to disclose its business operation in respect of participation in supply chain audit. The purpose is for the companies to assess and manage risks of slavery and trafficking in persons, examine suppliers in the supply chain to assess their compliance with the companies' standards on prevention of slavery and trafficking in persons.

The suppliers of the companies have to certify that the raw materials used in the production of the products comply with legal requirements of national anti-slavery and anti-trafficking in persons laws of the respective country. Also, they have to certify that they maintain internal accountability standards and procedures for dealing with employees or contractors who do not comply with standards related to slavery and trafficking in persons. The companies shall appoint a person directly responsible for supply chain management who is trained in slavery and trafficking in persons issues, as well as management of supply chain risks.

Australia Modern Slavery Act The Australia Modern Slavery Act requires companies incorporated in Australia or companies operating in Australia with global annual revenues of more than AUD 100 million to report the risks of slavery in their operations and supply chains and measures to manage such risks. Moreover, the Australia Modern Slavery Act also requires external stakeholders to be involved in identifying the risks of slavery.

International Trade Laws with Human Rights-related Issues From the search, the research team identified international trade laws with aspects related to human rights, such as Section 307 of the US Tariff Act of 1930, which prohibits the import of goods produced using forced, prisoners or child labor. However, this law is under review after the reveal of the adverse human rights violation situation with Uighurs in Xinjiang China, involving massive forced labor and large-scale concentration camps, etc. (BBC, 2020; BBC; 2022). As a consequence, on the 23rd of December 23, 2021, U.S. President Joe Biden signed the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act (UFLPA) (Business & Human Rights Resource Centre, 2022).

Under this Act, it is required that confiscated goods and persons accused of engaging in forced labor in Xinjiang shall be reported. It also requires companies that have suppliers or use raw materials from such region to conduct human rights due diligence.

The Canadian Customs Tariff Act prohibits the import of goods produced by prisoners or forced labor. Canada is in the process of developing an anti-modern slavery law, known as Bill 216, which requires companies to report on prevention and mitigation measures for the risks of 2-13

forced or child labor in the production of goods in Canada and elsewhere, as well as import of goods (Business & Human Rights Resource Centre, 2020). This approach is an elevation of Canadian Customs Tariff Act to include aspects of human rights.

2-14

Table 2 - 2 Summary of the essence of law against modern slavery with human rights-related issues United Kingdom Modern Slavery Act Status Effective Targeted companies Companies offering goods or services in the United Kingdom with annual sales of at least GBP 36 million.

Australia Modern Slavery Act Effective Companies incorporated or operating in Australia with total annual global turnover of over AUD 100 million.

Covers supply chain of the companies or any parts of the business

California Transparency in Supply Chains Act Effective Retailers or producers receiving tax return from the State of California, mainly operating the income-generating business in the State or California with the annual global turnover of over USD 100 million.

Covers the direct supply chain for tangible products

Reporting and Companies are required to report and information disclosure disclose the anti-slavery and trafficking in persons prevention process in the operation of the companies and their respective supply chains for the previous fiscal year. The areas to be disclosed are: 5) Organizational structure, business model, and relationships with suppliers in the supply chain 6) Slavery and trafficking in persons policies 7) Slavery and trafficking in persons due diligence concerning the business operation of the company and supply chain

Companies are required to report and disclose the following information: 1) Participation of the company in the supply chain audit to assess and identify risks of slavery and trafficking in persons. If such audit is not conducted by an external party, the company has to clearly specified such fact.

2) The company’s examination of its suppliers to assess the compliance with the requirements of the company regarding prevention of slavery and trafficking in persons in the supply chain. The company shall make a statement if the audit is not independent and has not been informed in advance.

The report and disclosure shall consist of: 1) Organizational structure, business model and supply chain 2) Risks of slavery in the operation and supply chain 3) Assessment and identification process of such risks, including due diligence and remediation process 4) Effectiveness assessment of the above process 5) The report and disclosure of information shall set out the discussion process with juristic entities under the control of the company or other organization (in the event of a joint statement).

Scope of business activities

2-15

Covers the operation of the companies and their supply chains

United Kingdom Modern Slavery Act 8) Business operation of the company and supply chain with the risks of slavery and trafficking in persons including the risk evaluation and management 9) Slavery and trafficking in persons prevention process in the business operation and supply chain with efficiency evaluation based on appropriate indicators 10) Provision of training for employees on the issue of slavery and trafficking in persons Reporting frequency

Annually – the company is expected to publish such report on its website within 6 months after the end of the fiscal year.

California Transparency in Supply Chains Act Australia Modern Slavery Act 3) The suppliers of the company shall certify that the raw materials used in the production comply with the legal requirement of slavery and trafficking in persons.

4) The company shall make available internal accountability standards and procedures for employees or contractors who do not comply with relevant standards on slavery and trafficking in persons.

5) The company shall appoint a person directly responsible for supply chain management.

This person shall receive training on slavery and trafficking in persons, as well as supply chain risk management.

Not specified (depend on the company) Annually – the company shall submit the report to the Modern Slavery Statements Register within 6 months after the end of the fiscal year.

Source: The research team collected and updated the information from The Remedy Project (2021) and International Organisation of Employers (2021)

2-16

Table 2 - 3 Summary of the essence of international trade laws with human rights-related issues Section 307 of the U.S. Tariff Act Status Targeted companies

Effective Importer of goods into the United States

Scope of business activities

Import of goods into the United States

Legally prohibited activities

Import of goods produced by prisoner, forced or child labor.

Section 321 of the U.S. Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act

Canadian Customs Tariff Act

Effective Effective Importer of goods produced by workers of North Importer of goods into Canada Korean nationality or being citizens of North Korea into the United States Import of goods into the United States Import of goods into Canada

Import of goods produced by North Korean Import of goods produced by prisoner or forced workers, regardless of whether the goods are labor. produced in North Korea or elsewhere.

Due diligence process No specific requirement but remediation No specific requirement but remediation No specific requirement but the guideline measures shall be available in the event of measures shall be available in the event of human indicated that the due diligence of ethics of the human rights violation. rights violation. suppliers within the supply chain is the responsibility of the importer to certify that the imported goods were not produced by prisoner or forced labor.

Enforceability/ Enforcement may involve inquisition, The U.S. Customs and BOrder Patrol (CBP) and U.S. Enforcement may include inquisition, return or punishment confiscation of goods and imposition of fines. Immigration and Customs Enforcement can disposition of the goods and imposition of fines. implement both civil and criminal laws and have the authority to inquire and confiscate the products.

2-17

Section 307 of the U.S. Tariff Act Regulation

No specific requirement but remediation measures shall be available in the event of human rights violation.

Section 321 of the U.S. Countering America’s Canadian Customs Tariff Act Adversaries Through Sanctions Act No specific requirement but remediation No specific requirement measures shall be available in the event of human rights violation.

Source: The research team collected and updated the information from The Remedy Project (2021)

2-18

Table 2 - 2 shows the essence of laws against modern slavery. Even though there is no specific requirement for the businesses sector to conduct human rights due diligence, the laws require businesses to report or disclose information that demonstrates risk identification, examination and human rights risk assessment for the entire supply chain. Similarly, Table 2 - 3 shows the essence of international trade laws. Even though there is no specific requirement for the businesses sector to conduct human rights due diligence, but these laws clearly stipulate that businesses must be held accountable if human rights violation is identified in the supply chain. Also, there are efforts made to enhance the laws’ strictness in respect of human rights.

In other words, many countries may have not promulgated the human rights due diligence law nor made the human rights due diligence process a mandatory measure. However, other relevant laws may inevitably require companies or businesses to conduct a human rights due diligence in order to gain the trust that the company is undertaking steps in line with practices and legal provisions to mitigate the risk of reputational and business damage. This can be considered as a major incentive for the business sector to conduct human rights due diligence, even if it is not mandatory.

The research team noted that the laws on human rights due diligence and other legislations governing human rights-related issues, as aforementioned, are laws promulgated and implemented in Europe, the United States, Canada and Australia. Meanwhile, according to the review of data and documents, it appears that no country in Asia has promulgated legislation on human rights due diligence or other relevant laws under the same effect. In other words, human rights due diligence is still a voluntary measure for most countries in the Asian region.

However, even though Asian countries have not yet implemented laws on human rights due diligence, but many companies in Asia are manufacturers or exporters of goods in the supply chain of European companies. Therefore, these companies are semi-obligated to conduct human rights due diligence.

In addition, many Asian countries are becoming more focused on human rights issues. This is shown through the stock exchanges of many Asian starting to require listed companies to further disclose information on ESG, with human rights as one of the issues to be disclosed (The Remedy Project, 2021). The research team conducted the literature review relating to disclosure of human rights information in the capital market, details of which are presented in the next section.

2-19

2.3

Human rights disclosure guidelines for companies listed in the stock exchanges of multiple countries Stock exchange plays a role in encouraging companies to comply with the sustainabilitydriven requirements, including human rights issues, through the determination of guidelines and targets on human rights in multiple issues, in line with the UNGPs. This includes the development of best practices to promote large companies to disclose information or practices relating to human rights (Sustainable Stock Exchange, 2021).

Examples of the initiatives taken by the stock exchanges in different countries to promote and encourage listed companies to recognize human rights issues are as follows: United Kingdom In 2020, the London Stock Exchange Group (LSEG) issued the Modern Slavery Statement with the goal of encouraging listed companies to prioritize such issue. The LSEG assigned a senior executive as a risk regulator concerning related issues and to continuously organize trainings and maintain communication with employees of the companies. In addition, the London Stock Exchange also recommends that companies specifically assess human rights risks in their supply chains and encourages companies to have clear policy, particularly on the issues of employment, grievance mechanisms, suppliers’ ethics, examination measures of all suppliers in the supply chain on the issue of slavery, as well as requiring suppliers to commit that they will combat slavery and ensure that grievance mechanisms are stipulated in the contract (World Federation of Exchanges, 2022).

Hong Kong The Hong Kong Exchange (HKEX) requires listed companies to produce a corporate social responsibility report, specifying guidelines on the formulation of sustainability-integrated procurement policies. Moreover, the Hong Kong Stock Exchange produced a guidebook on the sustainable production of a code of conduct for suppliers in the supply chain to prevent social, environmental, as well as human rights problems. The code of conduct shall require suppliers to adhere to the requirements set out in the policy of the Hong Kong Exchange and the Suppliers’ Corporate Social Responsibility Code of Conduct, which covers guidelines on human rights and labor rights (World Federation of Exchanges, 2022).

The United States The Nasdaq Stock Exchange, the U.S. stock exchange ranked the second highest in terms of value, is in the process of gathering research, collecting data of listed companies, as well as 2-20

reviewing policy documents within the market for the preparation of guidelines or practices for the production of suitable human rights reports for listed companies and customers. It is expected that such human rights report will raise awareness on the issues of human rights for the listed companies (World Federation of Exchanges, 2022).

From the above examples, it is evident that the stock exchanges in many countries have set out guidelines for listed companies to prioritize their human rights issues, especially the disclosure of human rights information, which is an important mechanism that the stock exchange requires companies to undertake.

The Sustainable Stock Exchange (2021) research had reviewed and analyzed human rights practices in the ESG Disclosure Guidance provided by 56 stock exchanges around the world.

According to this research, it was found that 48 stock exchanges had discussed, directly and indirectly, human rights issues in the ESG Disclosure Guidance. This reflects that the majority of the stock exchanges are prioritizing human rights issues. However, from this amount, there are only 16 stock exchanges that referred to the UNGPs, indicating that most stock exchanges are still lacking identification of clear and precise details/practices.

In addition, the research also considered the ESG disclosure policies/guidelines related directly to human rights. It was found that the following numbers of stock exchanges recommended listed companies to take certain actions as follows: 23 recommended listed companies to develop human rights policies; 16 recommended listed companies to develop human rights policy based on the UNGPs; 9 recommended that there should be grievance mechanisms; and 7 recommended that human rights due diligence be conducted. However, no stock exchange has recommended the listed companies to develop policies on risk and human rights impact management. This reflects that although most stock exchanges have recommended the listed companies to prioritize human rights issues, such recommendations do not cover all human rights practices.

Meanwhile, when considering ESG disclosure policies/guidelines indirectly related to human rights, it was found that most of the stock exchanges already discussed various issues related to human rights, i.e., labor rights, diversity and inclusion, social responsibility, health and safety, stakeholder engagement, human capital, principles of multinational enterprises, and social policies of international labor organizations, responsible business operations and community 2-21

rights, etc. Integrating these issues into human rights practices will enable listed companies to establish clearer human rights practices (Sustainable Stock Exchange, 2021). The research of Matthew et al. (2019) studied the information disclosure guidelines of the stock exchanges in 5 ASEAN countries, namely Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore and Thailand. It was found that the stock exchanges of Thailand, Singapore and Malaysia require listed companies to disclose ESG information, which covers human rights issues. However, the requirements of the stock exchanges of all 3 countries are not based on the UNGPs. While the stock exchanges of Indonesia and the Philippines have not clearly defined human rights practices.

The human rights practices of the stock exchanges have great positive interact with the scores measuring conformity between human rights policies and the UNGPs. In other words, if the stock exchange has more intensive human rights practices, listed companies are also more likely to develop human rights policies that are more in line with the UNGPs. Therefore, to drive the development of human rights policies of the listed companies in ASEAN, the stock exchanges should develop robust human rights guidelines or practices in line with the UNGPs. ASEAN-level agencies, such as the ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights (AICHR), should jointly promote and establish human rights guidelines along with regional agencies and stock exchanges to streamline the regional practices.

Based on the human rights performance of 250 listed companies in the stock exchanges of all 5 countries in comparison with the scores of conformity between human rights policies and the UNGPs, it was found that the cumulative average scores of 50 leading companies in each country are as follows: the average score of Thailand is the highest at 42.6 percent, followed by Malaysia with an average score of 27.1 percent, Singapore with an average score of 19.5 percent, Indonesia with an average score of 10.2 percent and the Philippines with an average score of 8.9 percent, as displayed in Figure 2 - 1. However, there are only two countries, Thailand and Malaysia, that scored above the average of the group of countries studied. Thailand is deemed as the country with human rights guidelines most in line with the UNGPs, scoring almost twice the average score of the 5 ASEAN countries.

Although Thailand received the highest average score among the countries studied, a deeper look in the details revealed that as many as 94 percent of the listed companies had committed to human rights issues, but only half of them had set out clear human rights policies.

2-22

In addition, 30 percent of the companies gave their commitments which are connected to national human rights standards, such as "striving to respect civil rights according to the Constitution and the law", "shall comply with Thai law", or "striving to comply with international standards, while ensuring that the activities comply with national laws", etc. The reasons why companies gave their commitments or established policies that do not adhere to international standards and lack the enthusiasm to formulate human rights policy may be due to the fact that there are only 28 percent of companies that actually appointed agencies or personnel directly responsible for human rights, and none of the companies have had their human rights policies drafted by experts.

Figure 2 - 1 Proportion of scores on information disclosure in each country (percentage) 50

42.6

40 27.1

30 20 10

21.7

19.5 10.2

8.9

0

Indonesia

Malaysia

Philippines

Singapore

Thailand

Average

Source: Matthew et al. (2019) As for the progress of human rights operations in Thailand, even though the human rights due diligence process is still a voluntary measure and the level of human rights awareness in Thailand is still in its infancy, the progress is becoming more concrete, particularly, the establishment of National Action Plan on Business and Human Rights Phase 1 (2019 – 2022). The National Action Plan has adopted the principles of UNGPs to link between policies, laws, regulations, and measures, as well as to build partnerships with various sectors, including the public and private sectors, and civil society sector, to mitigate and solve human rights violations in Thailand (Rights and Liberties Protection Department, Ministry of Justice, 2019). Currently, Thailand is in the process of revising the draft National Action Plan Phase 2.

2-23

In addition, the Office of Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) requires listed companies to prepare the Form 56-1 One Report, which is the consolidation of the Annual Registration Statement and Annual Report. The report focuses on enhancing ESG information reporting, which includes human rights issues. Listed companies are also required to prepare and publish the Form 56-1 One Report for the first time in 2022 (InfoQuest News Agency, 2022).

The SEC advises listed companies to identify potential human rights risk factors pertaining to their business operations. Listed companies shall indicate impact management approaches for stakeholders and labor rights which integrate national and international human rights standards and included in their human rights policies, in line with the business operations and commitments given. Such strategies or policies should be applicable at the company level and its supply chain.

To ensure that no human rights violations will be committed under the company's operations, the company should also conduct a human rights due diligence (Securities and Exchange Commission, 2021).

2.4 Conclusion Based on relevant literature review, it was found that the human rights due diligence practices (HRDD) under the UNGPs are deemed as the important milestone and a universal standard of the human rights operations of the business sector over the last decade.

International organizations have integrated the UNGPs, including the HRDD practices, as part of their standards, i.e., the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises or the ILO Tripartite Declaration of Principles concerning Multinational Enterprises and Social Policy, etc.

These standards or practices are all voluntary and do not have any enforceability.

Therefore, the company can choose which information to report or which standards to adopt.

However, many countries around the world are becoming more focused on human rights issues, especially in the European region, where efforts have been made to enact human rights due diligence as a law at the regional level. The European Union is in the process of enacting human rights due diligence law both at the reginal and national levels. As present, countries that have promulgated the law on human rights due diligence are France, Norway and Germany. The essence of the laws is to require companies with the required qualifications, generally large companies (based on the number of employees or sales value) and companies incorporated in that country, to conduct human rights due diligence. The practice of which shall be in line with 2-24

internationally accepted standards and shall cover all business activities of the company.

Reporting and disclosure of such undertaking shall be disclosed to the public accordingly.

In some countries like the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, there are currently no laws on human rights due diligence. However, these countries have other laws that contain issues pertaining to human rights, such as child labor laws, trafficking in persons laws and other human rights issues that companies need to focus on, i.e., health and safety, nondiscrimination, right to assemble and negotiate. There are also international trade laws in many countries that impose bans on the import of goods involving violations or non-compliance with human rights requirements, etc. Even though these laws may not require the company to conduct human rights due diligence, in practice it is necessary for the company to conduct human rights due diligence throughout the supply chain. This is to ensure that the business operation of the company and its suppliers throughout the supply chain are adhering to the laws.

In addition to enhancing human rights due diligence through the legal mechanisms, the stock exchanges in many countries around the world have also begun to play a role in encouraging companies to focus more on human rights issues. Listed companies are now required to disclose sustainability information covering human rights issues. This is an important mechanism to raise the awareness of the business sector and accelerate its human rights operation. For Thailand, the Office of Securities and Exchange Commission of Thailand requires listed companies to disclose sustainability information, covering human rights issues, through the Form 56-1 One Report. Listed companies are recommended to conduct human rights due diligence as well.

2-25

Chapter 3 Results of the Human Rights Due Diligence Readiness Survey of Companies in Thailand The research team prepared a survey questionnaire to study the human rights due diligence readiness of companies. Data was collected online between 22nd of August – 27th of September 2022 (details are shown in the Annexes). There was a total of 57 respondents and the results can be summarized as follows: 3.1 General information of the respondents The research team analyzed the basic information of companies responded to the survey in order to gain an overview of the business operation and human rights risk issues of the respondents. The details are as shown below: Business Model Of the 57 companies responded, it was found that 49.12 percent (28 companies) are in the service sector; 38.60 percent (22 companies) are in manufacturing sector; and 12.28 percent (7 companies) are in trade sector. The proportion is as displayed in Figure 3 – 1.

Figure 3 - 1 Types of businesses (Unit: Percentage) N = 57 Manufacturing 38.60% Trade 12.28%

Service 49.12% T r a d e 1 2 .

2

3-1

Size of the companies The research team categorized the companies according to their sizes based on the definitions of the Office of SMEs Promotion (OSMEP), the details are as displayed in Table 3 – 1 below.

Table 3 - 1 Sized-based categorization Small companies (S) Medium-sized companies (M) Large companies (L) Annual No. of Annual No. of Annual No. of revenue employees revenue employees revenue employees (THB Million) (persons) (THB Million) (persons) (THB Million) (persons) Manufacturing Less than 100 Less than 50 100-500 50-200 More than 500 More than 200 Service/ Less than 50 Less than 30 50-300 30-100 More than 300 More than 100 Trade Type of business

Source: OSMEP According to the above criteria, if the size of the companies is to be classified by the revenue criteria, the majority of the respondents are large companies, constituting 75.44 percent (43 companies), while medium-sized and small companies are within the same proportion of 12.28 percent (7 companies), as shown in Figure 3 – 2.

Figure 3 - 2 Size of the companies (by annual revenue) (Unit: percentage)

N = 57 Medium-sized companies 12.28%

Large companies 75.44%

Small companies 12.28%

3-2

To determine the size of the companies based on the number of employees, it was found that the majority of the respondents are large companies, constituting 71.93 percent (41 companies); medium-sized companies at 21.05 percent (12 companies); and small companies 7.02 percent (4 companies), as shown in Figure 3 – 3.

Figure 3 - 3 Size of the companies (by number of employees) (Unit: percentage)

N = 57 Small companies 7.02%

Large companies 71.93%

Medium-sized companies 21.05% To ensure that the analysis is on the basis of the same information, the research team categorized the companies according to the categorization criteria set out above by considering the revenue and number of employees altogether. Based on that, the companies are categorized according to the following sizes: Large companies constitute 82.46 percent (47 companies) of the total respondents; Medium-sized companies constitute 10.53 percent (6 companies) of the total respondents; Small companies constitute 7.02 (4 companies) of the total respondents.

3-3

Figure 3 - 4 Size of the companies responded to the survey (Unit: percentage)

N = 57 Small companies 7.02%

Large companies 82.46%

Medium-sized companies 10.53% Listing in the Stock Exchange From the total 57 respondents, it was found that 85.96 percent (49 companies) are listed companies in the Stock Exchange of Thailand (SET); and 14.04 percent (8 companies) are companies not listed in the SET, as shown in Figure 3 – 5.

Figure 3 - 5 Companies listed in the Stock Exchange of Thailand (SET)

(Unit: percentage) N = 57 Not listed in the Stock Exchange 14.04%

Listed in the Stock Exchange 85.96%

3-4

Types of industries The research team categorized types of industries based on the definitions of the Stock Exchange of Thailand (Stock Exchange of Thailand, 2021). The companies responded to the survey operate multiple types of business, scattered among 24 types of industries, as shown in Figure 3 – 6.

3-5

Figure 3 - 6 Types of industries (Unit: percentage)

พลังงานและสาธารณูปโภค

7

Energy and utilities สื่อและสิ่งพิมพ์ Media and publishing

5

ประกันภัยและประกันชีวิต Insurance and life insurance

4

ตรเคมีและเคมีภัณฑ์ Petrochemical andปิโchemical product เงินทุนและหลักทรัพย์ Capital and securities

4 3

แฟชั่น Fashion

3

การท่องเที่ยวและสันทนาการ

Tourism and leisure ธนาคาร Banking

3

พาณิชย์ (ค้าปลีก/ค้าส่ง) Commerce (wholesale/retail)

3

Food and beverage เหล็กและผลิตภัณฑ์โลหะ Metal and product

3 2

Transportation and logistics

ขนส่งและโลจิสติกส์

2

ของใช้ในครัวเรือนและสำนักงาน

Home and office supplies บริการรับเหมาก่อสร้าง Construction

2

Real estate development

2

3

อาหารและเครื่องดื่ม

2

พัฒนาอสังหาริมทรัพย์

เทคโนโลยี สารสนเทศและการสื ่อสาร Information technology and communication

1

กองทุProperty นรวมอสังfund หาริมand ทรัพreal ย์และกองทรั สต์เพื่อการ… estate investment trust

1

Personal itemsของใช้ andสmedical supplies ่วนตัวและเวชภั ณฑ์ ชิ้นส่Electronic วนอิเล็กทรอนิparts กส์

1

Agricultural business ธุรกิจการเกษตร

1

Packaging บรรจุ ภัณฑ์

1

Automotive ยานยนต์

1

Constructionวัสดุmaterials ก่อสร้าง

1

Industrialวัสดุmaterials and machines อุตสาหกรรมและเครื ่องจักร

1

1

3-6

N = 57

Figure 3 - 7 Proportion of export revenue to total revenue (Unit: percentage)

ไม่มีรNo ายได้export จากการส่ งออก revenue 1-10% 12% 11-20% 2% 21-30% 2% 31-40% 5% 41-50% 3% 51-60% 2% 61-70% 2% 71-80% 2% 81-90% 0% 91-100% 5% ไม่ทราบ/ไม่มีข้อdata มูล 7% Unknown/No

58%

N = 57

In short, most of the companies responded to the readiness survey were large companies operating the business in the service and manufacturing sectors. The majority of them generate their main income from domestic business operations and all of them are Thai companies. None of the company is a subsidiary or affiliate of a multinational enterprise.

Employment model The research team analyzed the employment model based on the size of the companies to understand more about the nature of the operations or unique characteristics of companies of each size. The details are as follows: Large companies (47 companies) The majority of large companies, 53 percent, are in the service sector; followed by 41 percent in the manufacturing sector; and 6 percent in the trade sector, respectively. These companies are operating their businesses within the 20 industries. 15 percent of the companies are in the energy and utilities sector; followed by banking; insurance and life insurance; and media and publishing sectors at the equal proportion at 9 percent.

3-7

Figure 3 - 8 Large companies by types of business (Unit: percentage)

N = 47 Service sector 53% Trade sector 6%

Manufacturing sector 41%

3-8

Figure 3 - 9 Large companies by types of industry (Unit: percentage)

14.8% N = 47

Energy and utilities พลังงานและสาธารณู ปโภค Mediaสืand publishing ่อและสิ ่งพิมพ์ ประกันภัยand และประกั นชีวิต Insurance life insurance ธนาคาร Banking การท่องเทีTourism ่ยวและสัand นทนาการ leisure โตรเคมี และเคมีproduct ภัณฑ์ Petrochemicalปิand chemical เงิCapital นทุนและหลั กทรัพย์ and securities แฟชั่น Fashion อาหารและเครื ่องดื่ม Food and beverage บริการรับเหมาก่อสร้าง Construction เหล็กและผลิตภัณฑ์โลหะ Metal and product ขนส่งและโลจิสติกส์ Transportation and logistics พาณิชย์ (ค้าปลีก/ค้าส่ง) Commerce (wholesale/retail) ธุรกิจการเกษตร Agricultural business ของใช้ส่วนตัวและเวชภัณฑ์ Personal items and medical supplies ชิ้นส่วนอิเล็กทรอนิกส์ Electronic parts ยานยนต์ Automotive บรรจุภัณฑ์ Packaging ของใช้ในครัวเรือนและอุตสาหกรรม Home and industrial supplies เทคโนโลยี สารสนเทศและการสื ่อสาร

10.6% 8.5% 6.4% 6.4% 6.4% 6.4% 4.3% 4.3% 4.3% 4.3% 4.3% 4.3% 2.1% 2.1% 2.1% 2.1% 2.1% 2.1% 2.1%

Information technology and communication

3-9

When considering the employment of large companies, it was found that: 38 percent of large companies employ permanent workers or do not employ temporary workers.

About 47 percent of large companies employ Thai nationals or do not employ migrant workers.

Most companies, around 66 percent, employ people with disabilities in the proportion of 1-10 percent of the total workforce, while about 23 percent indicated that they do not employ workers with disabilities.

Most companies, about 85 percent, have an internal welfare committee. However, according to the survey, employees of most companies, about 64 percent of the respondents, are not a member of a labor union.

In about 21 percent of the companies, female workers constitute 51-60 percent of the workforce. The proportion of female workforce ranges widely from 11 to 90 percent for companies with female management. It was found that the proportion of female management ranges from 11-20 percent for about 19 percent of the companies. Considering the proportion of female management as a whole, it was found that for most companies, female management constitutes less than half, indicating that most companies have male executives.

Details of the survey results are as shown in Figure 3 - 10 to Figure 3 – 16.

3-10

Figure 3 - 10 Proportion of temporary workers to total workforce in large companies

(Unit: percentage) 38% N = 47 34%

ไม่มีแรงงานที ่ไม่ใช่พนักงานประจำ No temporary workers 1-10% 11-20% 21-30% 31-40% 41-50% 51-60% 61-70% 71-80% 81-90% 91-100% ไม่ทราบ/ไม่มีขdata ้อมูล Unknown/No

10% 6% 2% 2% 2% 2% 0% 0% 0% 4%

Figure 3 - 11 Proportion of migrant workers to total workforce in large companies

(Unit: percentage) ไม่มีแรงงานข้ ามชาติ No migrant workers

48%

1-10%

32%

11-20%

6%

21-30%

4%

31-40%

2%

41-50%

0%

51-60%

0%

61-70%

2%

71-80%

0%

81-90%

0%

91-100%

0%

ไม่ทราบ/ไม่มีขdata อ้ มูล Unknown/No

6% 3-11

N = 47

Figure 3 - 12 Proportion of workers with disabilities to total workforce in large companies

(Unit: percentage) ไม่No มีแdisabled รงงานที่เป็นworkers ผู้พิการ 1-10% 11-20% 21-30% 31-40% 41-50% 51-60% 61-70% 71-80% 81-90% 91-100% ไม่ทราบ/ไม่มีขdata ้อมูล Unknown/No

N = 47

24% 66% 4% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 4%

Figure 3 - 13 Proportion of large companies with internal welfare committee

(Unit: percentage) N = 47

No welfare committee at the business establishment 11%

Have welfare committee at the business establishment 85%

Unknown/No data 4%

3-12

Figure 3 - 14 Proportion of workers being members of labor unions to total workforce in large

companies (Unit: percentage) No employees beign members of labor

ไม่มีแรงงานที่เป็นสมาชิกสหภาพแรงงาน unions 1-10% 11-20% 21-30% 31-40% 41-50% 51-60% 61-70% 71-80% 81-90% 91-100% ไม่ทราบ/ไม่มdata ีข้อมูล Unknown/No

64%

N = 47

9% 6% 2% 0% 2% 2% 0% 2% 0% 0% 13%

Figure 3 - 15 Proportion of female workers to total workforce in large companies

(Unit: percentage) No female workersง ไม่มีแรงงานหญิ

0%

1-10%

0%

11-20%

N = 47 2%

21-30%

17%

31-40%

19%

41-50%

19%

51-60%

22%

61-70% 71-80%

17% 0%

81-90% 91-100% ไม่ทราบ/ไม่มีขdata ้อมูล Unknown/No

2% 0% 2%

3-13

Figure 3 - 16 Proportion of female management to total management in large companies

(Unit: percentage)

ไม่No มีผู้บfemale ริหารระดั บสูงเพศหญิง management 1-10% 11-20% 21-30% 31-40% 41-50% 51-60% 61-70% 71-80% 81-90% 91-100% ไม่ทราบ/ไม่มdata ีข้อมูล Unknown/No

2%

N = 47 17% 19% 13% 13% 15% 11%

0% 2% 6% 0% 2%

3-14

Medium-sized companies (6 companies) Most medium-sized companies, constituting 50 percent, operate in the trade sector; followed by 33 percent in the manufacturing sector; and 17 percent in the service sector. Their businesses are within real estate development industry (2 companies); construction materials (1 company); property fund and real estate investment trust (1 company); food and beverage (1 company); and fashion (1 company), as shown in the following details: Figure 3 - 17 Medium-sized companies by types of business (Unit: percentage)

N=6 Service sector 17%

Manufacturing sector 33%

Trade 50%

Figure 3 - 18 Medium-sized companies by types of industry (Unit: percentage)

N=6

Real estate development พัฒนาอสั งหาริมทรัพย์

2

Food and beverage อาหารและเครื ่องดื่ม

1

กองทุนรวมอสังหาริมทรัพย์และกองทรัสต์ Property fund and real estate เพื่อการลงทุนในอสังหาริมทรัพย์

1

investment trust Constructionวัmaterials สดุก่อสร้าง

1

Fashion แฟชั่น

1

3-15

When considering the employment of medium-sized companies, it was found that: - About 33 percent of companies employ temporary workers at 1-10 percent of the total workforce, while 17 percent of companies indicated that they do not employ temporary workers (all permanent workers).

- Most companies employ Thai workers, whereby about 50 percent of the companies stated that they do not employ migrant workers (all Thai workers).

- The majority of the companies, around 67 percent, provided that they do not employ workers with disabilities.

- Most companies, about 50 percent, are not aware whether they have an internal welfare committee, followed by 33 percent of the companies with an internal welfare committee. The majority of the employees of about 83 percent of those companies are not a member of a labor union.

- About 33 percent of the companies have female workforce at 71-80 percent of the total workforce. For companies with female management, it was found that about 33 percent of the companies have 41-50 percent of female management.

Details of the survey results are as shown in Figure 3 - 19 to Figure 3 – 25.

Figure 3 - 19 Proportion of temporary workers to total workforce in medium-sized companies (Unit: percentage) ไม่มีแรงงานที ่ไม่ใช่พนักงานประจำ No temporary workers 1-10% 11-20% 21-30% 31-40% 41-50% 51-60% 61-70% 71-80% 81-90% 91-100% Unknown/No ไม่ทราบ/ไม่มีขdata ้อมูล

N=6

17% 32% 0% 0% 0% 17% 17% 0% 0% 0% 0% 17% 3-16

Figure 3 - 20 Proportion of migrant workers to total workforce in medium-sized companies (Unit: percentage) ไม่migrant มmigrant ีแรงงานข้workers ามชาติ No No workers 1-10% 11-20% 21-30% 31-40% 41-50% 51-60% 61-70% 71-80% 81-90% 91-100% ไม่ทราบ/ไม่มีขdata ้อมูล Unknown/No

49%

N=6

17% 0% 0% 0% 17% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 17%

Figure 3 - 21 Proportion of workers with disabilities to total workforce in medium-sized

companies (Unit: percentage) ไม่Noมีแdisabled รงงานที่เป็workers นผู้พิการ 1-10%

66% 17%

11-20%

0%

21-30%

0%

31-40%

0%

41-50%

17%

51-60%

0%

61-70%

0%

71-80%

0%

81-90%

0%

91-100%

0%

ไม่ทราบ/ไม่มีขdata ้อมูล Unknown/No

0% 3-17

N=6

Figure 3 - 22 Proportion of medium-sized companies with internal welfare committee

(Unit: percentage) Have welfare committee at business establishment 33%

No welfare committee at the business establishment 17%

N=6

Unknow/No data 50%

Figure 3 - 23 Proportion of workers being members of labor unions to total workforce in

medium-sized companies (Unit: percentage) No employees beingกสหภาพแรงงาน members of labor ไม่มีแรงงานที ่เป็นสมาชิ unions 1-10% 11-20% 21-30% 31-40% 41-50% 51-60% 61-70% 71-80% 81-90% 91-100% Unknown/No ไม่ทราบ/ไม่มีขdata ้อมูล

83% 0% 0% 0% 17% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

3-18

N=6

Figure 3 - 24 Proportion of female workers to total workforce in medium-sized companies (Unit: percentage) ไม่มีแรงงานหญิ No female workersง 1-10% 11-20% 21-30% 31-40% 41-50% 51-60% 61-70% 71-80% 81-90% 91-100% ไม่ทราบ/ไม่มีขdata อ้ มูล Unknown/No

N=6

0% 0% 0% 0% 17% 17% 0% 17% 32%

17% 0% 0%

Figure 3 - 25 Proportion of female management to total management in medium-sized companies (Unit: percentage) ไม่Noมีผfemale ู้บริหารระดั บสูงเพศหญิง management 1-10% 11-20% 21-30% 31-40% 41-50% 51-60% 61-70% 71-80% 81-90% 91-100% ไม่ทราบ/ไม่มีขdata ้อมูล Unknown/No

N=6

0% 17%

0% 0% 17% 32% 0% 17% 0% 0% 0% 17%

3-19

Small companies (4 companies) The majority or 50 percent of small companies are in the service sector; followed by 25 percent in the manufacturing sector; and 25 percent in the trade sector. They are operating in the petrochemical and chemical industries (1 company); media and publishing (1 company); household and office supplies (1 company); and government agency (1 agency).

Figure 3 - 26 Small companies by types of business (Unit: percentage) N=4

Manufacturing 25%

Trade 25%

Service 50%

Figure 3 - 27 Small companies by types of industry (Unit: percentage) N=4

Petrochemical chemical ปิโตรเคมีand และเคมี ภัณฑ์ products

1

สื่อและสิ่งพิมพ์ Media and publishing

1

ของใช้ในครัand วเรือoffice นและสำนั กงาน Houseshold supplies

1

Government agency หน่วยงานของรั ฐ

1

When considering the employment of small companies, it was found that: - Most respondents, approximately 50 percent, do not know the proportion of temporary and permanent workers of the company. While, about 25 percent of the respondents indicated that their companies employ temporary workers in the proportion of 1-10 percent of the total workforce and another 25 percent of the 3-20

companies indicated that they do not employ temporary workers.

- The majority of the companies employ Thai workers, with about 75 percent indicating that they do not employ migrant workers (all Thai workers).

- About 50 percent of the companies do not employ workers with disabilities and 50 percent do not have the data.

- Most respondents, about 50 percent, are not aware whether the company has an internal welfare committee, and another 50 percent indicated that there is an internal welfare committee at the company. Employees of approximately 50 percent of the companies are not a labor union member.

- Most companies do not have female workers in their company, with about 50 percent stating that there are no female workers. In addition, regarding the proportion of female management in the company, about 50 percent of respondents do not know the proportion of female management of their companies, while another 50 percent stated that the company has female management in the proportion of 1-10 percent.

Detail of the survey results are as shown in Figure 3 - 28 to Figure 3 – 34.

3-21

Figure 3 - 28 Proportion of temporary workers to total workforce in small companies (Unit: percentage) ไม่มีแรงงานที ่ไม่ใช่พนักงานประจำ No temporary workers

25%

1-10%

25%

11-20%

0%

21-30%

0%

31-40%

0%

41-50%

0%

51-60%

0%

61-70%

0%

71-80%

0%

81-90%

0%

91-100%

0%

Unknown/No ไม่ทราบ/ไม่มdata ีข้อมูล

N=4

50%

Figure 3 - 29 Proportion of migrant workers to total workforce in small companies (Unit: percentage) Noไม่migrant workers มีแรงงานข้ ามชาติ 1-10% 11-20% 21-30% 31-40% 41-50% 51-60% 61-70% 71-80% 81-90% 91-100% ไม่ทราบ/ไม่มีขdata ้อมูล Unknown/No

75% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 25% 3-22

N=4

Figure 3 - 30 Proportion of workers with disabilities to total workforce in small companies (Unit: percentage) มีแรงงานที ป็นผู้พิการ No ไม่ workers with่เdisabilities 1-10% 11-20% 21-30% 31-40% 41-50% 51-60% 61-70% 71-80% 81-90% 91-100% Unknown/No ไม่ทราบ/ไม่มีขdata ้อมูล

50%

N=4

0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 50%

Figure 3 - 31 Proportion of small companies with internal welfare committee (Unit: percentage) N=4

Have welfare committee at the business establishment 50%

Unknown/No data 50%

3-23

Figure 3 - 32 Proportion of workers being members of labor unions to total workforce in small companies (Unit: percentage) No employees being members of labor unions

ไม่มีแรงงานที่เป็นสมาชิกสหภาพแรงงาน

50%

1-10%

0%

11-20%

0%

21-30%

0%

31-40%

0%

41-50%

0%

51-60%

0%

61-70%

0%

71-80%

0%

81-90%

0%

91-100%

0%

ไม่ทราบ/ไม่มีขdata ้อมูล Unknown/No

N=4

50%

Figure 3 - 33 Proportion of female workers to total workforce in small companies (Unit: percentage) No female workersง ไม่มีแรงงานหญิ 1-10% 11-20% 21-30% 31-40% 41-50% 51-60% 61-70% 71-80% 81-90% 91-100% ไม่ทราบ/ไม่มีขdata ้อมูล Unknown/No

50% 0% 25% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 25% 3-24

N=4

Figure 3 - 34 Proportion of female management to total management in small companies (Unit: percentage) ไม่Noมีผfemale ู้บริหารระดั บสูงเพศหญิง management 1-10% 11-20% 21-30% 31-40% 41-50% 51-60% 61-70% 71-80% 81-90% 91-100% Unknown/No ไม่ทราบ/ไม่มีขdata ้อมูล

N=4

0% 50% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 50%

In conclusion, when considering the employment model based on the sizes of the companies, it was found that companies of all sizes mostly employ permanent workers of Thai nationality. Furthermore, the majority of the companies of all sizes do not have workers who are members of any labor unions. Regarding employment of workers with disabilities, it was found that almost none of the companies, regardless of their sizes, employ workers with disability. If they do, this group of workers formed a very small proportion comparing to the total workforce of the respective company.

Most large companies have internal welfare committees, while more than half of the respondents from small and medium-sized companies responded that they do not know about welfare committees, followed by the companies of such sizes which have internal welfare committees.

As for the proportion of female workers in the organization, it was found that mediumsized companies have the highest proportion of female workers in the organizations, followed by large and small companies, respectively. The majority of small companies indicated that they have no female workers. This data reflects that operations within the organization are driven 3-25

primarily by male workers.

As for the proportion of women holding senior management positions in the organization, it was found that medium-sized companies have the highest proportion of women in senior management positions, followed by large and small companies, respectively. This is consistent with the data provided by the respondents on the proportion of female workers. However, it should be noted that the proportion of female management in large companies is considerably lower than the proportion of female workers in such companies. This suggests that it may be challenging for women to take senior management positions in large companies.

However, there is a caveat that survey respondents, especially small and medium-sized companies, form a small number of the total respondents. Hence, the data analysis may be deviated from the actual circumstance.

Human rights risk issues of the respondents The research team enquired companies about their significant human rights risks.

35 respondents identified their human rights issues, having the details as follows: Working and employment conditions - The risks identified by the companies are as follows: - Employment issues: There are 8 companies that identified risks related to employment conditions; labor; employment of migrant workers; overtime pay; determination of working hours; use of child labor (filming of shows and dramas); labor inspection and access to labor assessment results of contractors or suppliers as there may be concealment or any actions committed against labor law or possible case of illegal labor.

- Health and safety issues: There are 6 companies that identified health and safety risks with concerns involving occupational safety; food and consumption safety of employees in the organization.

- Discrimination issues: There are 6 companies that identified discrimination concerns and encouraged diversity within the organization, as well as prevention of harassments.

- Issues with freedom of association and the right to negotiate: There are 4 companies that identified the issue with freedom of association and the right to negotiate.

Personal Data Protection: There are 6 companies that expressed concerns about labor and client data leakage that may be caused by online data theft; the need for clients’ personal data protection, taking into account the rights of clients.

3-26

Communities and environment: There are 4 companies that identified risks of potentially causing impact on communities and the environment, including community water resources; risks relating to the zoning management of area of business operations and the surrounding communities; and 1 company has concerns about the health and safety of the surrounding communities.

Prevention and Remedy: There is 1 company in the banking sector that identified human rights risks from remedial management and the inclusion of environmental, social and governance factors, as well as human rights as one of the bank's credit consideration criteria.

Applying for membership or joining human rights model organization program The research team enquired the responding companies whether they applied/had ever applied for membership or joined/had ever joined any human rights-related projects and the survey respondents can provide more than one answer. The research team collected a total of 70 responses from companies, of which 40 percent (28 companies) had never been a member or participated in any project related to human rights.

For companies that applied/had ever applied for membership or joined/had ever joined projects related to human rights, it was found that the majority of the companies, constituting 11.43 percent (8 companies), are members of the United Nations Global Compact (UNGC); followed by 10.00 percent (7 companies) which are members of the Global Compact Network Association of Thailand (GCNT); 8.57 percent (6 companies) had applied to join the Project on Human Rights Model Organization of the Rights and Liberties Protection Department, Ministry of Justice; 2.86 percent (2 companies) are members of Women's Empowerment Principles (WEPs); and 2.86% (2 companies) are members of the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD). Details are as shown in Figure 3 – 35.

3-27

Figure 3 - 35 Types of membership or projects relating to human rights that companies had joined (Unit: percentage)

Members of World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) 2.85%

Members of Global Compact Network Thailand (GCNT) 10.00%

Never been a member or joined any human rightsrelated ptojects 40.00%

Members of United Nations Global Compact (UNGC) 11.43% Women's Empowerment Principles (WEPs) 2.86% Unknown/No data 24.29%

Joined Project on Human Rights Model Organization of the Rights and Liberties Protection Department, Ministry of Justice 8.57%

3-28

N = 70

3.2

Results of the survey on human rights due diligence readiness of companies The research team conducted a survey on the readiness of companies to conduct human rights due diligence by scoring them based on the criteria prepared (details are as shown in the Annexes). The main categories applied in the survey are as follows: 1) Human rights policies and practices are fundamental to human rights due diligence. Companies that clearly announce their human rights policies and practices to the public and communicate them to target groups or relevant stakeholders are apparently more ready than companies that neither announce their policies, nor have clear human rights practices, nor communicate policies to relevant stakeholders.

2) Human rights due diligence consists of human rights risk and impact audit; integration of findings from such risk and impact assessments to determine risk or impact prevention and mitigation measures; having a grievance mechanism or channel; having a remediation process for human rights violations; as well as having information reporting and public disclosure process. Companies with the readiness to conduct the human rights due diligence should be able to carry out these processes.

3) Requiring suppliers in the supply chain to respect human rights, the criteria mainly focus on companies requiring their suppliers in the supply chain to have a policy to respect human rights or to have well-established human rights practices. This includes requiring the companies to establish the monitoring process for their suppliers' operations. The outcome of the monitoring process shall be used to determine whether the company should do business with the supplier or to terminate such engagement. Companies that are ready to conduct human rights due diligence should have policies in place or be able to implement these processes.

Once the scores are obtained, the readiness level is determined by norm-referenced grading. The human rights due diligence readiness of the company can be divided into 3 levels: Companies with high level of readiness – Score ranges from 45-100 percent.

Companies with moderate level of readiness – Score ranges from 20-44 percent.

Companies with low level of readiness - Score ranges below 20 percent.

Based on the above evaluation criteria, the results of human rights due diligence readiness assessment can be summarized as follows: 3-29

According to the survey results, in the overview the majority of the companies, 22 companies or 38.60 percent, have moderate level of readiness; followed by 21 companies oe 36.84 percent, with the low level of readiness; and there are 14 companies or 24.56 percent, with high level of readiness.

Table 3 - 2 Summary of human rights due diligence readiness survey by size of the companies (Unit: company) Human Rights Due Large Medium-sized Small Total Diligence Readiness companies companies companies High level 13 1 14 Moderate level 16 3 3 22 Low level 18 3 21 Total 47 6 4 57 Since most of the respondents are large companies or companies listed on the Stock Exchange, the analysis of the survey results mainly reflects the human rights due diligence readiness/unreadiness of large companies. This is considered a limitation caused by the data in this study.

However, the research team found that the analysis of the readiness/unreadiness of large companies can reflect the overall picture of Thai companies in conducting human rights due diligence. As large companies, especially listed companies, are required to disclose sustainability information which encompasses human rights issues, through the preparation and disclosure of the Form 56-1 One Report. Also, these large companies have abundant budget and human resources to conduct human rights due diligence. Therefore, if they are not yet ready to conduct human rights due diligence, this may reflect the limitations or operational obstacles that small and medium-sized companies will have to face. In addition, the research team used the results of in-depth interviews for an analysis in the next chapter.

The details of the survey results on each issue are as follows: 3.2.1 Human rights policies and practices Declaration of human rights policies According to the survey results, the majority of the companies, 31 companies or 54.39 3-30

percent, publicly declared their human rights policies and/or commitments to respect principles or standards related to human rights issues. However, among this number, there are only 11 companies that possess high level of human rights due diligence readiness. This reflects that most companies focus on human rights issues in their business operations, but they may lack clear guidelines or processes required for human rights due diligence.

When consider the international principles or standards that companies with high level of readiness use as a reference to declare human rights policy or commitment, it was found that the majority of the companies, in the same amount of 8 companies each, referred to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. Followed is the reference made by 6 companies to labor standards pursuant to the 8 fundamental conventions of the International Labour Organization (ILO). Finally, the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises is referred to by the smallest number of 2 companies.

The total of 20 companies with moderate or low level of human rights due diligence readiness had publicly declared human rights policies and/or commitments to respect human rights standards and principles. 8 companies, forming the majority in this category, referred to the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. This is followed by 7 companies that referred to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; 6 companies referred to labor standards pursuant to the 8 fundamental conventions of the International Labour Organization (ILO); and the smallest number of 2 companies referred to the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises.

Determination of maximum working hours According to the survey, the majority of the companies, 37 companies or 64.91 percent, set the maximum of working hours at 48 hours or 60 hours per week (including overtime); followed by 10 companies or 17.54 percent with specified maximum working hours more than 48 hours and/or more than 60 hours per week (including overtime) (the companies within this category rely on the maximum working hours pursuant to Thai labor law, which shall not be more than 48 hours or 84 hours per week, including overtime.). There are 10 companies or 17.54 percent that do not have a maximum working hour policy.

3-31

Figure 3 - 36 Determination of maximum working hours (Unit: percentage) N = 57 No specification of maximum working hours 17.54%

Maximum working hours not more than 48 hours or 60 works per week (with overtime) 64.92%

Maximum working hours more than 48 hours and/or 60 hours per week (with overtime) 17.54%

The maximum working hours specified by the companies and the level of human rights due diligence readiness can be tabulated as follows:

3-32

Figure 3 - 37 Maximum working hours by readiness level (Unit: company) กำหนดเพดานชั ่วโมงการทำงานไม่ เกิน 48than ชั่วโมงต่ Maximum working hours not more 48 อ สัปดาห์orหรื 60 ชั่วโมงต่ อสัปดาห์ (รวมการทำงาน hours 60อworks per week (with overtime) ล่วงเวลา)

7

กำหนดเพดานชั ่วโมงการทำงาน แต่มากกว่ ่วโมง Maximum working hours more thanา 48 48 ชัhours ต่อสัปand/or ดาห์ และ/หรื มากกว่ 60 ชั่วโมงต่ อสัปดาห์ (รวม moreอthan 60า hours per week (with การทำงานล่ วงเวลา) overtime)

2

No maximum working hours specified ไม่มีการกำหนดเพดานชั่วโมงการทำงาน ระดัLow บน้อย

ระดั บปานกลาง Moderate

ระดัHigh บมาก

4 4

3 3 0

N = 57

15 15

4

5

10

15

20

Company with high level of readiness - The majority of the companies, forming 50 percent, sets the maximum working hours at not more than 48 hours or 60 hours per week (including overtime); followed by 28.57 percent of the companies with specified maximum working hours but more than 48 hours and/or more than 60 hours per week (including overtime); and 21.43 percent of the companies do not specify maximum working hours.

Company with moderate level of readiness – The majority of this group, accounting for 68.18 percent, have their maximum hours set at 48 hours or 60 hours per week (including overtime); followed by 18.18 percent of the companies with specified maximum working hours but more than 48 hours and/or more than 60 hours per week (including overtime); and 13.64 percent of the companies does not specify the working hours.

Company with low level of readiness – The majority of the companies within this group, 71.43 percent, set their maximum working hours at 48 hours or 60 hours per week (including overtime); followed by 19.05 percent of the companies with no maximum working hours specified; and 9.52 percent of the companies with specified maximum working hours but more than 48 hours and/or more than 60 hours per week (including overtime).

3-33

Overtime work Based on the survey, it was found that most companies, 38 companies or 66.67 percent, has a policy requiring that consent shall be obtained from the workers for any overtime work and remuneration at a special rate shall be paid to the workers; followed by 9 companies or 15.79 percent which has the policy requiring that consent shall be obtained for overtime work but no special remuneration shall be paid.

Figure 3 - 38 Determination of overtime work policy (Unit: percentage)

N = 57

Workers' consent is required but no special remuneration shall be paid 15.79%

Consent shall be obtained from workers and special remuneration shall be paid 66.67%

No overtime work policy 7.01% No condition that consent shall be obtained 10.53%

There are 6 companies, accounted for 10.53 percent, that do not impose a condition requiring consent of workers for overtime work. There are 4 companies, representing 7.02 percent, that do not establish an overtime policy where consent shall be obtained from workers and extra remuneration shall be paid.

However, the companies’ overtime policy can be classified by level of human rights due diligence readiness as follows:

3-34

Figure 3 - 39 Overtime policy by level of readiness (Unit: company) consent shall be obtained ต้อWorkers' งได้รับความยิ นยอมจากแรงงาน และจ่and าย specialค่าremunertation ตอบแทนพิเศษshall be paid

11

Workers' consent shall be obtained ต้องได้ รับความยิ นยอมจากแรงงาน แต่ไม่จbut ่าย no special remuneration ค่าตอบแทนพิ เศษshall be paid

4

ไม่มีนโยบายให้แรงงานทำงานล่วงเวลา

No overtime policy

2 2

Workers' be obtained ต้องได้รconsent ับความยิshall นยอมจากแรงงาน

2

ระดัLow บน้อย

ระดัModerate บปานกลาง

ระดัHigh บมาก

1

N = 57 14 13

5

3

0 5 10 15 Company with high level of readiness – The majority of the companies, as high as 92.86 percent, require as a condition that consent of the workers shall be obtained and they pay special remuneration for overtime work. There is only one company that does not set the condition requiring consent of workers for overtime work.

Company with moderate level of readiness – The majority of the companies, or 63.64 percent, require as a condition that consent of the workers shall be obtained and they pay special remuneration for overtime work; followed by 18.18 percent of the companies with the condition that consent of the workers shall be obtained but they do not pay special remuneration; companies with no overtime policy and companies that do not stipulate the condition on consent requirement for overtime work constitute are in the same proportion of 9.09 percent.

Company with low level of readiness – The majority of the companies, forming 52.38 percent, required as a condition that consent of the workers shall be obtained and they pay special remuneration for overtime work; followed by 23.81 percent of the companies that provided that overtime work requires the consent of workers but do not pay special remuneration; followed by 14.29 percent of the companies that has no condition requiring the consent of the workers for overtime work; and 9.52 percent of the companies do not have the policy requiring workers to work overtime.

In conclusion, it can be said from the overview that the majority of the companies at all levels of readiness stipulated that overtime work requires the consent of workers, and workers 3-35

shall be paid special remuneration in a special rate which is consistent with the requirement of the labor laws.

Assigning person responsible for human rights According to the survey results, the majority of the companies, a total of 29 companies or 50.88 percent, have established working groups or assigned responsible persons directly for human rights operation. Among this number, 15 companies or 26.32 percent have designated an employee at the level of senior manager and above to be a responsible person. There are 28 companies or 49.12 percent that have not established a working group or assigned a person responsible for the implementation of the company's human rights operation. The details are as shown in Figure 3 – 40.

Figure 3 - 40 Establishment of a human rights working group or assignment of the person responsible for human rights operation (Unit: percentage)

N = 57 Responsible person has been assigned for human rights operation of the company 24.56%

Responsible person in the position of senior manager or above has been assigned for human rights operation of the company 26.32%

No assignment of any responsible person for human rights operation of the company 49.12%

The companies' policy on assigning the responsible person for human rights operation can be classified by the level of human rights due diligence readiness, details are as follows: Company with high level of readiness - In most cases, 57.14 percent of the companies have established a working group or assigned a responsible person to undertake the company's human rights work, whereby the responsible person is in the position of a senior manager or above; followed by companies that have a policy to establish a working group or assign a person responsible for the implementation of human rights work of the company and companies that 3-36

have established working groups or persons responsible for human rights, in equal proportion at 21.43 percent.

Company with moderate level of readiness – The majority, or 40.91 percent of the companies, have not yet established a working group or assigned a person responsible for human rights; followed by 31.82 percent of the companies that have established a working group or assigned a responsible person for the company’s human rights operation; and followed by 27.27 percent of the companies that have established a working group or assigned a responsible person in a position of senior manager or above for the implementation of human rights work of the company.

Company with low level of readiness – Most companies, or 76.19 percent, do not have a working group or person responsible for human rights operation; followed by 19.05 percent of the companies that have established a working group or assigned a person responsible for human rights works; and 4.76 percent of the companies have established a working group or assigned a person in the position of senior manager or above to be responsible for human rights works of the company.

Table 3 - 3 Number of companies with established working groups or assigned person responsible for human rights works, classified by the level of readiness (Unit: company) Level of readiness Policy requirements

Total High

No establishment of a working group nor assignment of person responsible for human rights works Have established a working group or assigned a person responsible for human rights works Have established a working group or assigned a person in the position of senior manager or above to be responsible for human rights works

Moderate Low

3

9

16

28

3

7

4

14

8

6

1

15

Based on Table 3 – 3, it is evident that companies with high and moderate levels of human rights due diligence readiness have established a specific working group or assigned a person responsible for human rights works. Many companies assigned a person in a position of senior manager or above to take such responsibility, while most companies with low level of 3-37

readiness have not assigned a specific person responsible for human rights works.

3-38

Policy to protect human rights defenders and those who exercise the right of peaceful assembly According to the survey, most companies have not announced a zero-tolerance policy against harassment, threats, violence, punishment, surveillance, or physical or legal attacks against human rights defenders, including those exercising their right to freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, association and peaceful protest. Only 17 companies, or 29.82 percent, indicated that such policy had been announced, details as shown in Figure 3 – 41.

Figure 3 - 41 Declaration of the company’s zero tolerance commitment against harassment, threats, and legal attacks against human rights defenders (Unit: percentage)

N = 57 Companies with public commitment 29.82% Companies with no public commitment 70.18%

Measures to promote or support the work of human rights defenders When considering measures to promote or support the work of human rights defenders at the local and/or national level, it was found that the majority of the companies, 46 companies or 80.70 percent, do not have measures or programs to support the work of human rights defenders. There are only 11 companies or 19.30 percent with measures or projects to support the work of human rights defenders. From this number, 7 companies have measures implemented at community level, constituting 12.28 percent; 3 companies at national level, constituting 5.26 percent; and 1 company with measures to promote or support work of human rights defenders both at the community and national levels, constituting 1.76 percent. Details are as shown in Figure 3 – 42.

3-39

Figure 3 - 42 Measures to promote or support the work of human rights defenders (Unit: percentage) Companies with measures to promote or support the work of human rights defenders at the community and national levels 1.76%

N = 57

Companies with no measures to promote or support the work of human rights defenders 80.70%

Companies with measures to promote or support the work of human rights defenders at the community level 12.28% Companies with measures to promote or support the work of human rights defenders at the national level 5.26%

There are only 7 companies, constituting 12.28 percent, that have announced a policy of zero tolerance against harassment, threats, violence, punishment, surveillance, or physical or legal attacks against human rights defenders, including those who exercise the right to freedom of expression, assembly, association, and peaceful protest. Simultaneously, they also provide support measures to promote or support the work of human rights defenders. This reflects that most companies have not paid much attention to human rights defenders.

Policy on the consultation with ethnic groups/local communities According to the survey results, most companies, 33 companies or 57.89 percent, do not have a policy on the consultation with ethnic groups/local communities both pre- and during project implementation. There are only 11 companies or 19.30 percent which have a policy on the consultation with ethnic groups/local communities which is disclosed to the public. Details are shown in Figure 3 – 43.

3-40

Figure 3 - 43 Policy on the consultation with ethnic groups/local communities (Unit: percentage)

N = 57

Companies with policy on the consultation with ethnic groups/local communities which has been publicly disclosed 19.30%

Companies with no policy on the consultation with ethnic groups/local communities 57.89%

Companies with policy on the consultation with ethnic groups/local communities but has not been publicly disclosed 22.81%

The policies on the consultation with ethnic groups/local communities can be classified according to the level of human rights due diligence readiness, as follows: Company with high level of readiness – 42.86 percent of the companies have a policy regarding consultation with ethnic groups/local communities which have been publicly disclosed; followed by 35.71 percent of the companies with no consultation policy with ethnic groups/local communities; and 21.43 percent of the companies have a policy on the consultation with ethnic groups/local communities but have not publicly disclosed it.

Company with moderate level of readiness – Most companies, or 59.09 percent, in this category do not have a policy on the consultation with ethnic groups/local communities; followed by 27.27 percent of the companies with a policy on the consultation with ethnic groups/local communities but such policy has not been publicly disclosed; and 13.64 percent of the companies have the policy on the consultation with ethnic groups/ local communities and they have publicly disclosed such policies.

Company with low level of readiness – Most companies, forming 71.43 percent, do not have a policy on the consultation with ethnic groups/local communities; followed by 19.05 percent of the companies with policy on the consultation with ethnic groups/local communities which has not been publicly disclosed; and 9.52 percent of the companies have the policy on the consultation with ethnic groups/local communities and have publicly disclosed such policy.

3-41

Human rights policy communication Based on the survey results, it was found that there are 31 companies, or 54.39 percent, that have communicated their human rights policies specifically to at least 1 group of stakeholders. There are 26 companies, or 45.61 percent, that do not communicate their human rights policies. Details are as shown in Figure 3 – 44.

Figure 3 - 44 Communication of human rights policy to stakeholders (Unit: percentage) N = 57 Companies with no communication of human rights policy to stakerholders 45.61%

Companies with communication of human rights policy to stakeholders 54.39%

The details of methods to communicate human rights policies to specific group of stakeholders can be summarized as detailed in Table 3 – 4.

Table 3 - 4 Groups of stakeholders to whom human rights policies have been communicated classified by the level of readiness (Unit: company) Level of readiness of the company Groups of stakeholders receiving High Moderate Low communication Communication only through public policy 2 8 1 announcement (no specific groups of stakeholders) Companies’ executives 3 11 11 Employees/workers 4 11 9 Suppliers within the supply chain 2 10 5 Employees/workers of suppliers 2 8 6 Contractors 2 8 4 Customers 2 8 4 Potentially effected communities 3 7 5 Remarks: Respondents may select more than one answer for this question, resulting in the higher 3-42

total number than the number of total respondents.

Training on human rights issues Since 2019 onwards, there are 26 companies, or 45.61 percent, that have provided specific training on human rights issues to stakeholders. There are 22 companies, or 38.60 percent, that have never provided training on human rights issues; and there are 9 companies, or 15.79 percent, that do not know about training on human rights issues. Details are as shown in Figure 3 – 45.

Figure 3 - 45 Provision of training on human rights issues (Unit: percentage) N = 57 No data 15.79%

Companies with no training on human rights issues provided to stakeholders 38.60%

Companies with training on human rights issues provided to stakeholders 45.61%

The details of trainings on human rights issues provided specifically to each group of stakeholders can be summarized as shown in Table 3 – 5.

Table 3 - 5 Groups of stakeholders receiving trainings on human rights issues, classified by the level of readiness of the companies (Unit: company) Groups of stakeholders receiving trainings Level of readiness of the company of human rights issues High Moderate Low Companies’ executives 3 9 9 Employees/workers of the companies 5 11 10 Suppliers in the supply chain 2 3 3 Employees/workers of the suppliers 3 4 4 Potentially effected communities 3 2 3 Remarks: Respondents may select more than one answer for this question, resulting in the 3-43

higher total number than the number of total respondents.

3.2.2 Human Rights Due Diligence The research team asked the survey respondents that, "Since early 2019, what is the level of human rights due diligence that your company has conducted?". The survey revealed that 27 companies, or 47.37 percent, indicated that they have conducted human rights due diligence; and 30 companies, or 52.63 percent, have never conducted human rights risk and impact due diligence. The level of human rights risk and impact audit can be classified as follows: The company has never conducted human rights risk and impact due diligence since the beginning of 2019.

The company has conducted human rights risk and impact due diligence once at the level of the main factory/establishment.

The company has conducted human rights risk and impact due diligence once at the company level (excluding supply chain).

The company has conducted human rights risk and impact due diligence once at the company level and the level of Tier 1 suppliers in the supply chain (top priority suppliers).

The company has conducted human rights risk and impact due diligence more than once at the level of the main factory/establishment.

The company has conducted human rights risk and impact due diligence more than once at the company level (excluding supply chain).

The company has conducted human rights risk and impact due diligence more than once at the company level and the level of Tier 1 suppliers in the supply chain (top priority suppliers).

The results of the survey are detailed as shown in Figure 3 – 46.

3-44

Figure 3 - 46 Human risk and impact due diligence, classified by the level of readiness of the company (Unit: company) 10

Never conducted human rights risk and due ไม่ เคยตรวจสอบความเสี ่ยงและผลกระทบด้ านสิimpact ทธิมนุษยชน diligence

8 1 1

1 1time factory/establishment level ครั้ง -- main ระดับโรงงาน/สถานประกอบการหลั ก

1

1 ครั้ง - ระดั บบริ(excluding ษัท (ไม่รวมห่supply วงโซ่อุปchain) ทาน) 1 time - company level

12

2 2 2

2 2

1 time - company level and tier 1 supplier in the supply 1 ครั้ง - ระดับบริษัทและคู่ค้าในห่วงโซ่อุปทานอย่างน้อย Tier 1 chain more thanา 1once factory/establishment level มากกว่ ครั้ง -- main ระดับโรงงาน/สถานประกอบการหลั ก

1

2

more than once - company level (excluding supply มากกว่า 1 ครั้ง - ระดับบริษัท (ไม่รวมห่วงโซ่อุปchain) ทาน)

3

more company 1 supplier มากกว่ า 1than ครั้ง -once ระดับ- บริ ษัทและคูlevel ่ค้าในห่and วงโซ่อtier ุปทานอย่ างน้อยin the supply chain Tier 1

ระดัLow บมาก

N = 57

4 4

0 ระดัModerate บปานกลาง

5 ระดัHigh บน้อย

10

15

However, the research team noted that there are discrepancies in the survey results.

In other words, most companies with high readiness level have never conducted human rights risk and impact due diligence, and companies that have conducted, only done so once. Meanwhile, the survey results revealed that companies with moderate and low level of readiness had conducted human rights risk and impact due diligence more than once. The research team found that such controversial findings could be caused by the respondents’ existing mechanisms, policies and procedures necessary for the protection of human rights, such as a grievance mechanism for employees and communities, etc. However, they have not yet conducted the human rights due diligence, or it could be that the respondents do not have sufficient knowledge or understanding about human rights risk and impact due diligence and they may understand that the process is the same as the risk assessment process of the organization.

3-45

Moreover, based on the research team’s in-depth interviews with business operators in small and medium-sized companies, it was found that some operators might have indicated in the survey that they had conducted the human rights due diligence, even though they may not have much understanding on the issues of business and human rights. For this issue, the research team will apply the results of the in-depth interviews as part of the analysis in the next chapter.

For the 27 companies that indicated that they conducted human rights risk and impact due diligence, they were required to answer whether or not findings from human right risk and impact assessment have been integrated to determine human rights risk protection and mitigation measures; how the effectiveness is evaluated and how human rights operations have been improved; as well as whether human rights performance was disclosed to the public. The survey results can be summarized as follows: Integration of findings from human rights due diligence Based on survey results, it was found that companies have integrated the findings from human rights risk and impact assessment. There are 7 companies, or 25.93 percent, that have applied such findings to improve and prevent potential risks and impacts; 11 companies, or 40.74 percent, have applied the findings to prevent and mitigate risks and impacts, as well as to develop an action plan and targets, but such information is not publicly disclosed; 9 companies, or 33.33 percent, have applied such findings to prevent and mitigate the risks and impacts, develop action plan and targets, and publicly disclosed such information. Details are as shown in Figure 3 – 47.

3-46

Figure 3 - 47 Integration of findings from human rights due diligence (Unit: percentage)

N = 27 Findings from the assessment were integrated to prevent human rights risks and impacts, develop action plan and targets and have been publicly disclosed 33.33%

Findings from the risk and impact assessment were integrated to prevent human rights risks 25.93%

Findings from the assessment were integrated to prevent human rights risks and impacts, develop action plan and targets and have not been publicly disclosed 40.74%

Company with high level of readiness – 4 companies have conducted human rights risk and impact due diligence with different level of integration: 1 company, forming 25 percent, has applied the findings to determine human rights risk and impact prevention and mitigation measures but neither an action plan nor targets were developed; 2 companies, or 50 percent, integrated findings and developed action plans and targets, but have not made the information public; and 1 company, or 25 percent, integrated findings from human rights risk and impact assessment and developed an action plan and target, as well as publicly disclosed such information.

Company with moderate level of readiness – 10 companies have conducted human rights risk and impact due diligence with different level of integration: 2 companies, forming 20 percent, applied the findings to determine human rights risk and impact prevention and mitigation measures but neither an action plan nor targets were developed; 3 companies, or 30 percent, integrated findings and developed action plans and targets, but have not made the information public; and 5 companies, or 50 percent, integrated findings from human rights risk and impact assessment and developed action plans and targets, as well as publicly disclosed such information.

Company with low level of readiness - 13 companies have conducted human rights risk and impact due diligence with different level of integration: 4 companies, forming 30.77 percent, applied the findings to determine human rights risk and impact prevention and mitigation 3-47

measures but neither an action plan nor targets were developed; 6 companies, or 46.15 percent, integrated findings and developed action plans and targets, but have not made the information public; and 3 companies, or 23.08 percent, integrated findings from human rights risk and impact assessment and developed action plans and targets, as well as publicly disclosed such information.

Assessing the effectiveness and improving human rights operations According to the survey results, the majority, 19 companies or 70.37 percent, of the companies that have conducted human rights due diligence, have assessed their effectiveness and improved their human rights operations without participation from NGOs/human rights experts. This is followed by 5 companies or 18.52 percent, that have assessed the effectiveness and improved the human rights operations with the participation of NGOs/human rights experts.

There are only 3 companies, or 11.11 percent, that do not assess their effectiveness nor improve their human rights operations. Details are as shown in Figure 3 – 48.

Figure 3 - 48 Assessing the effectiveness and improving human rights operations (Unit: percentage)

N = 27 Companies that do not assess the effectiveness of human rights operations 11.11%

Companies that assess the effectivenss of human rights operation without participation from NGOs/human rights experts 70.37%

Companies that assess the effectivenss of human rights operation with participation from NGOs/human rights experts 18.52%

Company with high level of readiness - There is only one level of assessment being the assessment of the effectiveness of the company’s human rights operation without participation from NGOs/human rights experts conducted by 4 companies, forming 100 percent.

Company with moderate level of readiness – 2 companies, representing 20 percent, 3-48

assessed the effectiveness of their human rights operations with the participation of NGOs/human rights experts. There are 7 companies, or 70 percent, that assessed the effectiveness of their human rights operations without the participation of NGOs/human rights experts. There is only one company, or 10 percent, that did not assess the effectiveness of human rights operations.

Company with low level of readiness – 3 companies, representing 23.08 percent, assessed the effectiveness of their human rights operations with the participation of NGOs/human rights experts. There are 8 companies, or 61.54 percent, that assessed the effectiveness of their human rights operations without the participation of NGOs/human rights experts. There are 2 companies, or 15.38 percent, that did not assess the effectiveness of human rights operations.

Disclosure of human rights performance According to the survey results, among the companies that have conducted human rights due diligence, 13 companies, or 48.15 percent, of which have annually disclosed their human rights performance; 6 companies, or 22.22 percent, have periodically disclosed such human rights performance (not annually); and 8 companies, or 29.63 percent, do not disclose human rights performance. Details are as shown in Figure 3 – 49.

3-49

Figure 3 - 49 Disclosure of human rights performance (Unit: percentage) N = 27 Companies annually disclose human rights performance 48.15%

Companies without any human rights performance disclosure 29.63%

Companies periodically disclose human rights performance (not annually) 22.22% Company with high level of readiness – From the 4 companies in this category, there are 2 companies, or 50 percent, that have annually disclosed their human rights performance/ or reported their human rights due diligence; and 2 companies, or 50 percent, that have not disclosed their human rights performance/reported their human rights due diligence.

Company with moderate level of readiness – From the 10 companies in this category, there are 6 companies, or 60 percent, that have annually disclosed their human rights performance/reported their human rights due diligence; there is 1 company, or 10 percent, that have conducted periodic disclosure; and there are 3 companies, or 30 percent, that have not reported their human rights performance.

Company with low level of readiness – From the 13 companies in this category, there are 5 companies, or 38.46 percent, that have annually disclosed their human rights performance/reported their human rights due diligence; there are 5 companies, or 38.46 percent, that have conducted periodic disclosure; and there are 3 companies, or 23.08 percent, that have not reported their human rights performance.

Grievance and remediation mechanisms According to the survey results, 53 companies, or 92.98 percent, do have a grievance mechanism and only 4 companies, or 7.02 percent, do not. This shows that the majority of the companies realized the importance of a grievance mechanism to a certain extent. In addition, it was found that companies have various channels for receiving grievances, i.e., via e-mail, website, internal grievance system, letter, and grievance center, respectively. Details are as shown in Table 3-50

3 – 6.

Table 3 - 6 Grievance channels of companies, classified by level of readiness (Unit: company) Level of readiness of the company Total High Moderate Low Grievance channels

E-mail 11 19 18 48 Website 11 15 14 40 Internal grievance system, i.e., intranet 8 13 13 34 Letters 8 11 14 33 Grievance center/Call Center 7 10 12 29 Remarks: Respondents may select more than one answer for this question, resulting in the higher total number than the number of total respondents.

When considering the target group for the grievance channels, it was found that the companies have made available channels or mechanisms to receive complaints from various groups of stakeholders. The group with highest priority is the companies’ employees; followed by customers, the general public, and suppliers within the supply chain, potentially affected communities; employees of suppliers and their communities, respectively.

Table 3 - 7 Target groups for the companies’ grievance channels, classified by the level of readiness (Unit: company) Level of readiness of the company Groups of stakeholders Total High Moderate Low Employees/workers 13 20 18 51 11 17 17 45 Customers General public 10 16 18 44 Suppliers within the supply chain 10 13 17 40 Potentially effected communities 9 15 16 40 Employees/workers of suppliers 9 14 15 38 Communities of the suppliers 8 14 13 35 Remarks: Respondents may select more than one answer for this question, resulting in the higher total number than the number of total respondents.

For the language used in the grievance channel, it was found that all companies have provided a grievance channel in Thai, while some companies have also provided English 3-51

grievance channel. In addition, there is only one company with a grievance channel in a third language being Myanmar and Cambodian.

Stakeholder engagement process for the design and efficiency development of grievance mechanism/channel Out of the 53 companies with a grievance mechanism/channel, there are only 20 companies, or 37.74 percent, that have a stakeholder engagement process for the design and efficiency development of the grievance mechanism/channel. There are 33 companies, or 62.26 percent, without a stakeholder engagement process for the design and efficiency development of the grievance mechanism/channel. Details are as shown in Figure 3 – 50.

Figure 3 - 50 Stakeholder engagement process for the design and efficiency development of the grievance mechanism/channel (Unit: percentage) N = 53 Companies with stakeholder engagement process 37.74%

Companies without stakeholder engagement proces for grievance mechanism/channel 62.26%

Resource, budget, or consultation support for equal access of the stakeholders to the grievance process Some companies have supported equal access and participation of stakeholders in the grievance processes. There are as many as 30 companies, constituting 57.81 percent, that have provided support one way or another. Based on the survey, 29.69 percent of the companies provided that they might have supported by way of additional resources, i.e., regular production of public relations materials; and 28.13 percent indicated that they have provided additional consultation to stakeholders regarding access to grievance process. Meanwhile, 42.19 percent of respondents viewed that additional resource support is not necessary and the existing grievance mechanism is sufficient. Details are as shown in Figure 3 – 51.

3-52

Figure 3 - 51 Resource, budget, or consultation support for equal access of stakeholders to grievance process (Unit: percentage) N = 57

Additional มีการสนั บสนุนทรัพresource ยากรเพิ่มsupport เติม (เช่น provided จัดทาสื่อ (i.e.,ประชาสั regularมpublic พันธ์อย่าrelations งสม่าเสมอ)materials)

29.69%

มีกConsulation ารให้คาปรึกษาแนะน าแก่to ผู้มstakeholders ีส่วนได้ส่วนเสียใน provided on การเข้าสูaccess ่กระบวนการร้ องเรียน process to grievance

28.12%

No additional ไม่มีการสนัsupport บสนุนใดๆprovided เพิ่มเติม

42.19%

Disclosure of grievance handling process According to the survey results on the disclosure of grievance handling process (the companies can select more than one answer), it was found that 54.79 percent of the companies disclosed various processes related to grievance handling of their organizations. Such processes include: disclosure of the grievance handling process (45.21 percent), disclosure of the policy to report progress to the complainant within the specified period (26.03 percent), and disclosure of the grievance withdrawal process (5.48 percent). Apart from that, approximately 23.29 percent indicated that their companies do not disclose any processes related to their grievance handling.

Details are as shown in Figure 3 – 52.

3-53

Figure 3 - 52 Number of companies disclosing their grievance handling process (Unit: percentage) N = 57 45.21%

Companies disclosing the grievance มีการเปิดเผยกระบวนการจัhandling ดการข้อร้process องเรียน Companies disclosing grievance

มีการเปิดเผยกระบวนการเพิกถอนข้อ withdrawal process ร้องเรียน

5.47%

disclosing policy to report มีCompanies การเปิดเผยนโยบายการรายงานความ progress to the complainants within คืบหน้าแก่ผู้ร้องเรียนภายในระยะเวลาที่ specified period of 3, 7 or 15 days, etc. กาหนด เช่น 3 วัน 7 วัน หรือ 15 วัน เป็นต้น

26.03%

not disclosing any processบ ไม่Companies มีการเปิดเผยกระบวนการใด ๆ ในการรั grievance เรื่องร้ofองเรี ยน handling

23.29%

Company with high level of readiness – The majority of the companies, constituting 69.23 percent, disclosed their grievance handling process. While 14.29 percent of the companies disclosed their grievance withdrawal process; 35.71 percent disclosed the policy to report progress to the complainant within the specified period; and 30.77 percent do not disclose any process regarding grievance handling.

Company with moderate level of readiness – The majority of the companies, constituting 59.09 percent, disclosed their grievance handling process. While 9.09 percent of the companies disclosed their grievance withdrawal process; 40.90 percent disclosed the policy to report progress to the complainant within the specified period; and 27.27 percent do not disclose any process regarding grievance handling.

Company with low level of readiness – The majority of the companies, constituting 52.38 percent, have disclosed their grievance handling process. While 23.81 percent have disclosed the policy to report progress to the complainant within the specified period; and 33.33 percent do not disclose any process regarding grievance handling.

Policy on no retaliation against complainant of a grievance or a concern Considering a policy on no retaliation against filing of complaints or concerns, it was found that there are only 19 companies, constituting 33.33 percent, that have a policy on no 3-54

retaliation against filing of complaints or concerns. Details are as shown in Figure 3 - 53. However, if classified by the level of readiness, it was found that the companies with such a policy consisted of 5 companies with a high level of readiness; 7 companies with moderate level of readiness; and 7 companies with low level of readiness. This reflects that the complainant protection mechanisms of the companies are not sufficiently robust.

Figure 3 - 53 No retaliation policy against complainant of a grievance or a concern (Unit: percentage) N = 57

Companies with no retaliation policy against filing of grievance or concern 33.33%

Companies without no retaliation policy against filing of grievance or concern 66.67%

Privacy protection policy for the complainant The survey found that 41 companies or 71.93 percent have privacy protection policy for the complainant, but do not have an NGO-based grievance mechanism. There are 9 companies, or 15.79 percent, with privacy protection policy for the complainant and also an NGO-based grievance mechanism; and there are only 7 companies, or 12.28 percent, without privacy protection policy for the complainants. Details are as shown in Figure 3 – 54.

3-55

Figure 3 - 54 Privacy protection policy for the complainant (Unit: percentage) N = 57

Companies without privacy protection policy for the complainant 12.28%

Companies with a privacy protection policy for the complainant but no NGO-based grievance mechanism 71.93%

Companies with a privacy protection policy for the complainant and an NGO-based grievance mechanism 15.79%

The privacy protection policy for the complainant of the companies can be classified based on the level of human rights due diligence readiness as follows: Company with high level of readiness – The majority of the companies, 12 companies or 85.71 percent, have privacy protection policy, but no NGO-based grievance mechanism; 1 company, or 7.14 percent, has privacy protection policy and an NGO-based grievance mechanism; and 1 company, or 7.14 percent, do not have a privacy protection policy.

Company with moderate level of readiness – The majority of the companies, 15 companies or 68.18 percent, have privacy protection policy, but no NGO-based grievance mechanism; 3 companies, or 13.64 percent, have privacy protection policy and an NGO-based grievance mechanism; and 4 companies, or 18.18 percent, do not have a privacy protection policy.

Company with low level of readiness – The majority of the companies, 14 companies or 66.67 percent, have privacy protection policy, but no NGO-based grievance mechanism; 5 companies, or 23.81 percent, have privacy protection policy and an NGO-based grievance mechanism; and 2 companies, or 9.52 percent, do not have a privacy protection policy.

Remediation policy for victims of human rights violations Although most companies pay significant attention to grievance mechanisms/channels, however, remediation policy for victims of human rights violations is not prioritized as much as such mechanisms/channels. The survey found that only 26 companies (45.61 percent) have a remediation policy for victims of human rights violations; and 31 companies (54.39 percent) do not have such a policy. Details are as shown in Figure 3 – 55.

3-56

Figure 3 - 55 Remediation policy for victims of human rights violations (Unit: percentage) N = 57

Companies with remediation policy for victims of human rights violations 45.61%

Companies without remediation policy for victims of human rights violations 54.39%

The remediation policy for victims of human rights violation can be classified according to the level of human rights due diligence readiness of the companies, as follows: Company with high level of readiness – There are 3 companies, or 21.42 percent, with available but undisclosed remediation policy for victims of human rights violations; there is 1 company, or 7.14 percent, with available and disclosed remediation policy for victims of human rights violations. Other than that, the remaining 10 companies, or 71.42 percent, do not have a remediation policy for victims of human rights violations.

Company with moderate level of readiness – There are 6 companies, or 27.27 percent, with available but undisclosed remediation policy for victims of human rights violations; there are 6 companies, or 27.27 percent, with available and disclosed remediation policy for victims of human rights violations. Other than that, the remaining 10 companies, or 45.46 percent, do not have a remediation policy for victims of human rights violations.

Company with low level of readiness – There are 9 companies, or 42.86 percent, with available but undisclosed remediation policy for victims of human rights violations; there is 1 company, or 4.76 percent, with available and disclosed remediation policy for victims of human rights violations. Other than that, the remaining 11 companies, or 52.38 percent, do not have a 3-57

remediation policy for victims of human rights violations.

From the above data, when comparing with the number of companies with grievance mechanisms/channels, it is shown that there are fewer companies with a remediation policy for victims of human rights violations. In addition, the disclosure by the companies of such policy to the public is relatively low.

Disclosure of grievance-related information According to the survey on the disclosure of grievance-related information (companies can select more than 1 answer), it was found that: the majority of the companies, 36 companies, or 63.16 percent, have disclosed grievance-related information; and 21 companies, or 36.84 percent, have not disclosed grievance-related information. Details are as shown in Figure 3 – 56.

Figure 3 - 56 Disclosure of grievance-related information (Unit: company) N = 57 Companies without annual disclosure of grievance-related information 36.84% Companies with annual disclosure of grievancerelated information 63.16%

Company with high level of readiness – 5 companies with this level of readiness have annually disclosed information on grievances handled by the company; 1 company has disclosed information related to the grievance that the company refused to handle; 1 company has disclosed information related to the reasons the company refused to handle the grievances; and 5 companies have disclosed information on the outcome and follow-up of the finalized grievances.

Company with moderate level of readiness – 8 companies with this level of readiness have annually disclosed information on grievances handled by the company; 1 company has disclosed information related to the grievance that the company refused to handle; and 9 companies have disclosed information on the outcome and follow-up of the finalized 3-58

grievances.

Company with low level of readiness – 11 companies with this level of readiness have annually disclosed information on grievances handled by the company; 3 companies have disclosed information related to the grievance that the company refused to handle; and 4 companies have disclosed information related to the reasons the company refused to handle the grievances; and 6 companies have disclosed information on the outcome and follow-up of the finalized grievances. Details are as shown in Figure 3 – 57.

Figure 3 - 57 Type of information related to disclosed grievances, classified by level of readiness (Unit: company) Annual disclosure to เปิดเผยรายปี ข้อมูลofเกีinformation ่ยวกับผลลัพrelated ธ์และการ outcomeาหรั and ติดตามผลส บข้follow-up อร้องเรียนซึof่งthe เป็นfinalized ที่สิ้นสุดแล้ว grievances 0

เปิดเผยรายปี ข้อมูลเกี่ยวกับข้อร้องเรียนที่บริษัท Annual disclosure of information related to the ปฏิเสธที่จะจัดการ

4 1

1 1

grievance that the company refused to handle

3

เปิดเผยรายปี ข้อมูofลเกีinformation ่ยวกับข้อร้อon งเรียgrievances นที่มีการ Annual disclosure จัดthe การcompany handled by

ระดัHigh บมาก

11

8

5

No annual disclosure of information on ไม่มีการเปิ ดเผยข้อมูลเกี่ยวกับข้อร้องเรียนเป็นราย grievances ปี ระดัModerate บปานกลาง

9

5

เปิดเผยรายปี ลเกี่ยวกับเหตุrelated ผลในกรณี ที่ Annual disclosureข้ofอมูinformation to the บริษthe ัทปฏิcompany เสธที่จะจัrefused ดการกับtoข้อhandle ร้องเรียthe น reasons grievances

ระดัLow บน้อย

N = 75

6

7 7 7 0

5

10

15

Lesson learned from the grievances According to the survey results, it was found that 28 companies, constituting 49.12 percent, have taken the lessons learned from the grievances and used them to improve the human rights operations. From this number, there are 6 companies with high level of human rights due diligence readiness; 10 companies with moderate level of human rights due diligence 3-59

readiness; and 12 companies with low level of human rights due diligence readiness; and 29 companies, or 50.88 percent, did not take any lessons learned. Details are as shown in Figure 358.

Figure 3 - 58 Taking lessons learned from the grievances (Unit: company)

Companies with lessons learned taken from annual grievances for the improvement of human rights…

Companies with no lessons learned process from the annual grievances…

3.2.3 Requiring suppliers in the supply chain to respect human rights Among the responding companies in this survey, there are 16 companies, or 28.07 percent, with a policy that requires suppliers to publicly announce their policies/commitments to respect the principles of human rights; there are 30 companies, or 52.63 percent, that do not require their suppliers to announce policies or make public commitments relating to human rights. There are 11 companies, or 19.30 percent, that do not have the information on this subject. The companies can be classified according to the level of human rights due diligence readiness, as follows: Company with high level of readiness – Based on the international principles or standards that companies with high level of readiness use as a reference to require suppliers to respect human rights through the declaration of human rights policy or commitment, it was found that: 2 companies referred to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR); and 1 company referred to the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights; 2 companies referred to the 8 fundamental conventions of the International Labour Organization (ILO); and no company referred to the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises.

3-60

Company with moderate level of readiness – Based on the international principles or standards that companies with moderate level of readiness use as a reference to require suppliers to respect human rights through the declaration of human rights policy or commitment, it was found that: 4 companies referred to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR); and 4 companies referred to the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights; 3 companies referred to the 8 fundamental conventions of the International Labour Organization (ILO); and 2 companies referred to the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises.

Company with low level of readiness – Based on the international principles or standards that companies with low level of readiness use as a reference to require suppliers to respect human rights through the declaration of human rights policy or commitment, it was found that: 3 companies referred to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR); and 3 companies referred to the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights; 2 companies referred to the 8 fundamental conventions of the International Labour Organization (ILO); and 2 companies referred to the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises.

Moreover, the research team explored the requirements related to human rights issues that the companies require its suppliers to comply, consisting of the following issues: Determining the maximum working hours According to the survey results, it was found that 25 companies, or 43.86 percent, do not require suppliers to set the maximum working hours to be not more than 48 hours or 60 hours per week (including overtime). In addition, 22 companies, or 38.60 percent, were unaware of the requirements regarding the maximum working hours that the company had with its suppliers.

However, only 10 companies, or 17.54 percent of the respondents indicated that the company requires suppliers to set the maximum working hours to not exceeding 48 hours or 60 hours per week (including overtime), in line with international standards. Details are as shown in Figure 3 – 59.

3-61

Figure 3 - 59 Maximum working hours requirements (for suppliers) (Unit: percentage) N = 57 Required 17.54% Not required 43.86%

Unknown/No data 38.60%

The details of the policy on maximum working hours imposed upon the suppliers by the companies can be classified according to the level of human rights due diligence readiness, as follows: Company with high level of readiness – 42.86 percent of the respondents do not have data on the requirement on the maximum working hours of not exceeding 48 hours or 60 hours per week (including overtime) that the company has with its suppliers; followed by 28.57 percent of the companies with the requirement on maximum working hours of not exceeding 48 hours or 60 hours per week (including overtime); and, in the same proportion, 28.57 percent of the companies have not specified maximum working hours.

Company with moderate level of readiness – The majority of the companies, constituting 50 percent, did not require their suppliers to set maximum working hours; followed by 36.36 percent of the respondents do not have the data on this subject; and only 13.64 percent of the respondents require the suppliers to set the maximum working hours to not exceeding 48 hours or 60 hours per week (including overtime).

Company with low level of readiness – 47.62 percent of the companies do not require the suppliers to set the maximum working hours; followed by 38.10 percent of the respondents not having the data on the subject; and 14.29 percent of the respondents require the suppliers to set the requirement on maximum working hours to not exceeding 48 hours or 60 hours per week (including overtime).

Establishment of an overtime policy According to the survey results, 26 companies, or 45.61 percent, do not require their 3-62

suppliers to have an overtime policy that requires consent from workers and payment of remuneration at a special rate; followed by 21 respondents, or 36.84 percent, did not know that the company had such requirements; and 10 companies, or 17.54 percent, require the suppliers to set the condition that overtime work requires consent from the workers but no condition on the payment of special remuneration. Details are as shown in Figure 3 – 60.

Figure 3 - 60 Establishment of an overtime policy (for suppliers) (Unit: percentage) N = 57 Required 17.54% Not required 45.62%

Unknown/No data 36.84%

The overtime policy imposed upon the suppliers by the companies can be classified according to the level of human rights due diligence readiness, as follows: Company with high level of readiness – 42.86 percent of the respondents have no information on the requirement imposed upon the suppliers by the companies that overtime work requires consent from workers and that remuneration at a special rate shall be paid.

Moreover, in the same proportion of 28.57 percent, the companies indicated that they have/do not have a requirement that consent of workers shall be obtained for overtime work and special remuneration shall be paid.

Company with moderate level of readiness – 54.55 percent of the companies do not impose a requirement upon the suppliers that consent shall be obtained from workers for overtime work and that remuneration at a special rate shall be paid. This is followed by 31.82 percent of the respondents which do not have the information on the subject. There are only 13.64 percent of the companies which imposed a requirement upon the suppliers that consent 3-63

shall be obtained from workers for overtime work and special remuneration shall be paid.

Company with low level of readiness – 47.62 percent of the companies do not impose a requirement upon the suppliers that consent shall be obtained from workers for overtime work and that remuneration at a special rate shall be paid. This is followed by 38.10 percent of the respondents which do not have the information on the subject. There are only 14.29 percent of the companies which impose a requirement upon the suppliers that consent shall be obtained from workers for overtime work and special remuneration shall be paid.

Policy on the consultation with ethnic groups/indigenous people/local communities According to the results, 26 companies, or 45.61 percent, do not require suppliers to establish policies on the regular consultation with ethnic groups/indigenous peoples/local communities, both pre- and during the project construction or implementation. There are only 7 companies, or 12.28 percent, that require the suppliers to have such a policy. In addition, the other 24 companies, or 42.11 percent, do not have information about such requirements that the company has with its suppliers. Details as shown in Figure 3 – 61.

Figure 3 - 61 Policy on the consultation with ethnic groups/indigenous people/local communities (for suppliers) (Unit: percentage) N = 57

Required 12.28% Not required 45.61% Unknown/No data 42.11%

The policy on the consultation with ethnic groups/indigenous peoples/local communities can be classified according to the level of human rights due diligence readiness, as follows: Company with high level of readiness - About 42.86 percent of the respondents have no 3-64

information about the requirement imposed upon the suppliers to establish policies on the consultation with ethnic groups/indigenous peoples/local communities on a regular basis, both before and during project construction or implementation. Moreover, in the same proportion of 28.57 percent, the companies indicated that they have/do not have such requirement imposed upon the suppliers.

Company with moderate level of readiness - About 59.09 percent of the respondents do not require the suppliers to establish policies on the consultation with ethnic groups/indigenous peoples/local communities on a regular basis, both before and during project construction or implementation. Moreover, 36.36 percent of the respondents have no information on this matter.

There are only 4.55 percent of the companies that impose such requirement upon the suppliers.

Company with low level of readiness - About 47.62 percent of the respondents do not have the information on the requirement imposed upon the suppliers to establish policies on regular consultation with ethnic groups/indigenous peoples/local communities, both before and during project construction or implementation. This is followed by 42.86 percent of the companies that do not impose such requirement upon the suppliers. Moreover, there is only 9.52 percent of the respondents that impose such requirement upon the suppliers.

When considering the overview, it can be concluded that the majority of the respondents from companies of all levels of readiness do not have the information regarding the requirements imposed upon the suppliers to establish policies for regular consultation with ethnic groups/indigenous peoples/local communities, both before and during project construction or implementation.

Receiving grievances from stakeholders According to the survey results, it was found that 25 companies, or 43.86 percent, do not require suppliers to have at least one channel to receive grievance from all groups of stakeholders and there are only 12 companies, accounted for 21.05 percent, that require suppliers to have such a policy. Moreover, there are 20 companies, or 35.09 percent, that do not have information about such a requirement that the company has with its suppliers.

3-65

Figure 3 - 62 Receiving grievances from stakeholders (for suppliers) (Unit: percentage)

N = 57 Required 21.05%

Not required 43.86%

Unknown/No data 35.09%

The policy on grievance channel can be classified by level of human rights due diligence readiness, as follows: Company with high level of readiness - Around 42.86 percent of the companies require their suppliers to have at least one channel to receive grievances from all groups of stakeholders.

This is followed by 35.71 percent of respondents that do not have the information about such requirement, and 21.43 percent that do not require their suppliers to have at least one channel to receive grievances from all groups of stakeholders.

Company with moderate level of readiness - Around 59.09 percent of the companies do not impose a requirement upon their suppliers to have at least one channel to receive grievances from stakeholders. This is followed by 31.82 percent of respondents that do not have the information about such requirement. There are only 9.09 percent of the respondents that impose such requirement upon their suppliers.

Company with low level of readiness - Around 42.86 percent of the companies do not impose a requirement upon their suppliers to have at least one channel to receive grievances from all groups of stakeholders. This is followed by 38.10 percent of the respondents that do not have the information about such requirements. There are only 19.05 percent of the respondents that impose such requirement upon their suppliers.

Public disclosure of the process of handling grievances from stakeholders According to the survey results, there are 6 companies, or 10.53 percent, that require suppliers to publicly disclose the process of handling grievances from stakeholders. There 28 companies, or 49.12 percent, that do not require suppliers to disclose the process of handling 3-66

grievances from stakeholders and there are 23 companies, or 40.35 percent, that do not have the information on this matter. Details are as shown in Figure 3 – 63.

Figure 3 - 63 Disclosure of the process of handling grievances from stakeholders (for suppliers) (Unit: percentage)

N = 57

Required 10.53% Not required 49.12% Unknown/No data 40.35%

Company with high level of readiness – There are 3 companies, or 31.43 percent, that require suppliers to publicly disclose the process for handling grievances from stakeholders. There are 5 companies, or 35.71 percent, that do not require suppliers to establish a policy to publicly disclose the process for handling grievances from stakeholders. There are 6 companies, or 42.86 percent, that do not have information about such requirement.

Company with moderate level of readiness – There are 2 companies, or 9.09 percent, that require suppliers to publicly disclose the process for handling grievances from stakeholders.

There are 13 companies, or 31.82 percent, that do not require suppliers to establish a policy to publicly disclose the process for handling grievances from stakeholders. There are 7 companies, or 59.07 percent, that do not have information about such requirement.

Company with low level of readiness – There is 1 company, or 4.76 percent, that requires suppliers to publicly disclose the process for handling grievances from stakeholders. There are 10 companies, or 47.26 percent, that do not require suppliers to establish a policy to publicly disclose the process for handling grievances from stakeholders. There are 10 companies, or 47.26 percent, that do not have information about such requirement.

3-67

Remediation policy for those whose human rights is negatively affected According to the survey, there are 6 companies, or 10.53 percent, that require suppliers to establish policies to remedy those whose human rights is negatively affected, in the event that it was caused by or involved the supplier. There are 26 companies, or 45.61 percent, that do not require suppliers to establish policies to remedy those whose human rights is negatively affected.

There are 25 companies, or 43.86 percent, that do not have the information about such requirements. Details are as shown in Figure 3 – 64.

Figure 3 - 64 Remediation policy for those whose human rights is negatively affected (for suppliers) (Unit: percentage)

N = 57

Required 10.53% Not required 45.61% Unknown/No data 43.86%

Company with high level of readiness – There are 3 companies, or 21.43 percent, that require the suppliers to establish remediation policies for those whose human rights is negatively affected. There are 5 companies, or 35.71 percent, that did not require their suppliers to have remediation policies for those whose human rights is negatively affected; and 6 companies, or 42.86 percent, that do not have information about such requirements.

Company with moderate level of readiness – There is 1 company, or 4.55 percent, that requires the suppliers to establish remediation policies for those whose human rights is affected negatively. There are 12 companies, or 54.55 percent, that did not require their suppliers to have remediation policies for those whose human rights is affected negatively and 9 companies, or 40.91 percent, that do not have information about such requirements.

Company with low level of readiness – There are 2 companies, or 9.52 percent, that 3-68

require the suppliers to establish remediation policies for those whose human rights is affected negatively. There are 9 companies, or 42.86 percent, that did not require their suppliers to have remediation policies for those whose human rights is affected negatively and 10 companies, or 47.62 percent, that do not have information about such requirements.

Human rights risk and impact assessment policy According to the survey, it was found that there are 7 companies, or 12.28 percent, that require the suppliers to assess human rights risks and impacts. There are 27 companies, or 47.37 percent, that do not require suppliers to assess human rights risks and impacts. Also, there are 23 companies, or 40.35 percent, that do not know about the requirements. Details are as shown in Figure 3 – 65.

Figure 3 - 65 Human rights risk and impact assessment policy (for suppliers) (Unit: percentage)

N = 57 Required 12.28% Not required 47.37% Unknown/No data 40.35%

Company with high level of readiness – There are 4 companies, or 28.57 percent, that require the suppliers to assess human rights risks and impacts. There are 4 companies, or 28.57 percent, that do not require the suppliers to assess human rights risks and impacts. Also, there are 6 companies, or 42.86 percent, that have no information about such a requirement.

Company with moderate level of readiness – There are 2 companies, or 9.09 percent, that require the suppliers to assess human rights risks and impacts. There are 13 companies, or 59.09 percent, that do not require the suppliers to assess human rights risks and impacts. Also, there are 7 companies, or 31.82 percent, that have no information about such a requirement.

Company with low level of readiness – There is 1 company, or 4.76 percent, that requires 3-69

the suppliers to assess human rights risks and impacts. There are 10 companies, or 47.62 percent, that do not require the suppliers to assess human rights risks and impacts. Also, there are 10 companies, or 47.62 percent, that have no information about such a requirement.

Monitoring or inspection process for human rights operations of suppliers There are 16 companies, or 28.07 percent, with a process to monitor or inspect human rights operations of their suppliers. There are 30 companies, or 52.63 percent, that do not have a process to monitor or inspect the human rights operations of their suppliers. Also, there are 11 companies, or 19.30 percent, that do not have the information on such matter. Among the companies that monitor the human rights operations of their suppliers, 5 companies have high level of human rights due diligence readiness; 7 companies with moderate level of readiness; and 4 companies with low level of readiness. Details are as shown in Figure 3 – 66.

Figure 3 - 66 Monitoring or inspection process for human rights operations of suppliers (Unit: percentage)

N = 57 Unknown/No data 19.30%

Companies without monitoring or inspection process for suppliers' human rights operations 52.63%

Companies with the process to develop monitoring or inspection plan for suppliers' human rights operations with annual implementation of such plan 28.07%

Application of human rights risk and impact assessment findings of suppliers to support the decision to engage/terminate business with the suppliers According to the results of the survey of companies that apply the findings from their suppliers’ human rights risk and impact assessment or human rights operation inspection to support the decision to engage or terminate the business with their suppliers, it was found that: there are 16 companies, constituting 28.07 percent, that have such a policy; 23 companies, or 40.35 percent, do not have such a policy; 18 companies, or 31.58 percent, do not have the information. Among the companies that apply the findings of risk and impact assessment to 3-70

support their business decisions: there are 5 companies with high level of human rights due diligence readiness; 7 companies with moderate level of readiness; and 4 companies with low level of readiness. Details are as shown in Figure 3 – 67.

Figure 3 - 67 Applying findings from assessment of human right operation to support decision to engage/terminate doing business with supplier (Unit: percentage) N = 57

Companies applying findings from assessment/inspection of human rights opreation to support decision to engage/terminate doing business with suppliers 28.07%

Companies not applying findings from assessment/inspection of human rights opreation to support decision to engage/terminate doing business with suppliers 40.35%

Unknown/No data 31.58%

3.3

Factors effecting human rights due diligence process In this section, the research team questioned companies about factors that promote or affect the human rights due diligence process of the companies during the last 3 years. The survey results are divided into 2 groups: the first group covers companies that have conducted human rights due diligence; and the second group covers companies that indicated that it has never conducted a human rights due diligence. Details are as shown in Figure 3 – 68.

3-71

Figure 3 - 68 Proportion of the companies that conducted human rights due diligence N = 57

Companies conducted human rights due diligence 40.35%

Companies never conducted human rights due diligence 59.65%

There are 23 companies which indicated that they have conducted human rights due diligence, forming 40.35 percent. The companies within this group have to consider the significance of the factors that support or affect its organizational operation of human rights. The rating of such factors shall be based on the following criteria: Level of significance Not significant Somewhat significant Moderately significant Highly significant Extremely significant

Score 1 2 3 4 5

3-72

The survey results of each factor can be summarized as follows: National policy/law – 20 respondents, or 86.96 percent, viewed that national policy/law is a highly and extremely significant factor.

International policy/law – 16 respondents, or 69.57 percent, viewed that international policy/law is a highly and extremely significant factor.

Interest from management – 22 respondents, or 95.65 percent, viewed that interest from management is a highly and extremely significant factor.

Interest from investors – 18 respondents, or 78.26 percent, viewed that interest from investors is a highly and extremely significant factor.

Demand from domestic customers – 19 respondents, or 82.61 percent, viewed that demand from domestic customers is a highly and extremely significant factor.

Demand from international customers – 14 respondents, or 60.87 percent, viewed that demand from international customers is a highly and extremely significant factor.

Capital/budget of the organization – 20 respondents, or 86.96 percent, viewed that capital/budget of the organization is a highly and extremely significant factor.

Drivers/requests from NGOs and civil society - 14 respondents, or 60.87 percent, viewed that drivers/requests from NGOs and civil society is a highly and extremely significant factor.

Requirements of the sustainability standards - 20 respondents, or 86.96 percent, viewed that requirements of the sustainability standards is a highly and extremely significant factor.

Furthermore, the respondents also identified other factors affecting human rights operations, namely: having clear organizational structure and guidelines. They viewed that the company should have an agency that is directly responsible for human rights. Indicators shall be determined for the human rights risk and impact assessment; demands of other stakeholders shall be surveyed, i.e., workers, suppliers, business allies, customers, trade competitors, members of the press. In addition, there should be a monitoring and inspection process to prevent the company from engaging in human rights violations.

As for the limitations in conducting human rights due diligence, some companies indicated that the most common problem is the knowledge and understanding on human rights, both for the personnel of the organization and other stakeholders. For example, some suppliers of the company may not recognize the importance and do not cooperate with the company on 3-73

the issue of human rights due diligence. Furthermore, there are limitations regarding the knowledge of survey design and collection of related information.

Additional recommendations from companies that have conducted human rights due diligence include: - Government agencies and non-governmental organizations should set achievable and measurable human rights goals.

- Relevant government agencies should establish a human rights due diligence tool that businesses can use its for self-assessment, such as online self-assessment questionnaire, as well as conducting a public advisory session with the public and the private sectors to develop standard-compliant tools.

- Government agencies should enhance the knowledge and understanding on human rights for the general public.

3-74

Table 3 - 8 Level of significance of factors that promote or affect the human rights due diligence process Factors promoting/affecting HRDD Level of significance Not significant Somewhat significant Moderately significant Highly significant Extremely significant Total

National policy/law

International policy/law

Interest of management

Demands of domestic customers

Interest of investors

Demands of international customers

Capital/budget of the organization

Drivers/requests of NGOs and civil society

Requirements of sustainability standard

Amount (company)

percentage

Amount (company)

percentage

Amount (company)

percentage

Amount (company)

percentage

Amount (company)

percentage

Amount (company)

percentage

Amount (company)

percentage

Amount (company)

percentage

Amount (company)

percentage

0

0.00%

2

8.70%

0

0.00%

1

4.35%

0

0.00%

0

0.00%

0

0.00%

0

0.00%

0

0.00%

2

8.70%

2

8.70%

1

4.35%

1

4.35%

3

13.04%

5

21.74%

2

8.70%

4

17.39%

1

4.35%

1

4.35%

3

13.04%

0

0.00%

3

13.04%

1

4.35%

4

17.39%

1

4.35%

5

21.74%

2

8.70%

4

17.39%

10

43.48%

5

21.74%

6

26.09%

7

30.43%

6

26.09%

13

56.52%

8

34.78%

9

39.13%

16

69.57%

6

26.09%

17

73.91%

12

52.17%

12

52.17%

8

34.78%

7

30.43%

6

26.09%

11

47.83%

23 100.00%

23 100.00%

23 100.00%

23 100.00%

3- 74

23 100.00%

23 100.00%

23 100.00%

23 100.00%

23 100.00%

There are 34 companies that have not conducted human rights due diligence, forming 59.65 percent. Among this number, the majority of them (26 companies or 76.47 percent) viewed that human rights due diligence is the matter that the company shall conduct within the next 2-3 years. Details are as shown in Figure 3 – 69.

Figure 3 - 69 Proportion of the companies viewing that human rights due diligence will be a matter of necessity within the next 2-3 years (Unit: percentage) N = 34

Not necessary 23.53%

Necessary 76.47%

The companies justified the "necessity" for them to conduct human rights due diligence, as follows: [Human rights due diligence] is an act of good corporate governance both within the organization and throughout the supply chain of the company and it is part of the international standards which the company has to comply.

Conducting human rights due diligence is respecting fundamental human rights and preventing human rights violations.

Human rights due diligence can reduce risks from human rights issues for the organization.

Human rights due diligence is a guideline for the organization to improve its management efficiency by listening to opinions from various stakeholders.

Human rights due diligence is a human rights issue that is gaining attention of consumers and the public.

There are only 8 companies, or 23.53 percent, that viewed that human rights due 3-75

diligence is not a matter of necessity for the company to implement within the next 2-3 years.

The companies justified the "unnecessity" for them to conduct human rights due diligence, as follows: -

The announcement of the human rights policy in accordance with the laws and regulations of the Stock Exchange is considered sufficient.

-

The company does not see the need for the human rights due diligence to cover its suppliers. The company views that internal human rights audit is sufficient, or if there is an audit, it should focus only on necessary issues.

-

The company has no human rights risks and no policy that violates human rights.

The research team further enquired about the challenges or limitations that the company may face if it has to conduct a human rights due diligence within 2-3 years, and rated the companies based on the following criteria: Level of significance Not challenging Somewhat challenging Moderately challenging Highly challenging Extremely challenging

Scores 1 2 3 4 5

The survey results of each factor can be summarized as follows: National policy/law – 20 respondents, or 58.82 percent, viewed that national policy/law is a not challenging and somewhat challenging factor.

International policy/law - 18 respondents, or 52.94 percent, viewed that international policy/law is a not challenging and somewhat challenging factor.

Support from the government - 19 respondents, or 55.88 percent, viewed that support from the government is a not challenging and somewhat challenging factor.

Support from management - 22 respondents, or 64.71 percent, viewed that support from management is a not challenging and somewhat challenging factor.

Capital/budget of the organization - 17 respondents, or 50.00 percent, viewed that capital/budget of the organization is somewhat challenging and moderately challenging factor.

3-76

Human rights body of knowledge - 22 respondents, or 64.71 percent, viewed that human rights body of knowledge is a moderately challenging and highly challenging factor.

The respondents also identified other challenges or limitations that affect human rights operations, namely: lack of skills, knowledge and expertise, shortage of personnel to carry out the work, and lack of cooperation from employees and suppliers. Some respondents agreed that human rights due diligence adds to the workload and may take away the opportunity to comprehensively care for the stakeholders. In addition, some companies viewed the due diligence requirement as a condition to impose trade exclusion or discrimination.

The research team enquired about the areas that the companies would like to receive further promotion or support if the companies are to conduct human rights due diligence, the survey results can be summarized as follows: - The companies would like to gain support on the knowledge, expertise, and personnel. They would like the government agencies to provide education or training on human rights to the private sector as a starting point for the private sector to scale up their knowledge on human rights.

- The Company would like government agencies to issue clear practices based on human rights laws and regulations.

- The companies would like the private sector to be supported with a mechanism that can give them the power to bargain with the suppliers, so that suppliers can recognize the importance and participate in human rights due diligence. Also, there should be a guideline to address the replacement of suppliers in the event that large suppliers fail to comply with the principles of human rights.

Additional recommendations from companies that have not yet conducted a human rights due diligence indicated that they would like the government to be an intermediary to encourage and build and publish the human rights knowledge through the government’s media channels.

3-77

Table 3 - 9 Level of significance provided by the companies for each factor that challenges the process of human rights due diligence Challenges or limitations if human National International Support Support from Capital/budget of Human rights rights due diligence policy/law policy/law from the management the organization body of has to be conducted within 2-3 years government knowledge Level of significance Not challenging Somewhat challenging Moderately challenging Highly challenging Extremely challenging Total

Amount (company)

Percentage

11 32.35% 9 26.47% 7 20.59% 4 11.76% 3 8.82% 34 100.00%

Amount (company)

Percentage

11 32.35% 7 20.59% 6 17.65% 7 20.59% 3 8.82% 34 100.00%

Amount (company)

Percentage

14 41.18% 5 14.71% 10 29.41% 1 2.94% 4 11.76% 34 100.00%

3-78

Amount (company)

Percentage

14 41.18% 8 23.53% 7 20.59% 3 8.82% 2 5.88% 34 100.00%

Amount (company)

Percentage

6 17.65% 10 29.41% 7 20.59% 9 26.47% 2 5.88% 34 100.00%

Amount (company)

Percentage

4 11.76% 8 23.53% 11 32.35% 11 32.35% 0 0.00% 34 100.00%

3.4

Conclusion of the survey and study limitations Based on the results of the survey on human rights due diligence readiness of companies in Thailand, it was found that the majority of the companies have the moderate level of human rights due diligence readiness. However, since most respondents are large companies (82.46 percent) or companies listed in the stock exchange (85.96 percent), the analysis of the survey results reflects mainly human rights due diligence readiness/unreadiness of large companies, which is the limitation arising from the data of this study. However, the research team found that the analysis of the readiness/unreadiness of large companies can reflect the overall picture of Thai companies in the conduct of human rights due diligence. This is because large companies, especially publicly listed companies, are required to disclose sustainability information, which covers human rights issues in the 56-1 One Report. Furthermore, large companies have the resources, both in terms of budget and personnel that allow them to conduct human rights due diligence. Therefore, if these large companies are not well equipped to conduct human rights due diligence, they may reflect the limitations or obstacles that small and medium-sized companies will have to encounter. Moreover, the research team applied the results of in-depth interviews to support the analysis in the next chapter.

According to the survey, it was found that the majority of the companies (54.39 percent) have publicly declared human rights policies and/or commitments to respect human rights principles or standards, with reference to the international principles or standards, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs). Also, more than half of the companies have established a working group or assigned a person directly responsible for human rights. Many companies assigned employees in the position of senior manager and above to be the responsible persons, showing their recognition of the importance of human rights operations.

On the communication of human rights policy, it was found that most companies (54.39 percent) communicate their human rights policies specifically with their stakeholders. They also provided human rights training to both personnel in the organization (executives and employees), as well as external stakeholders, i.e., suppliers in the supply chain, employees/workers of suppliers, contractors, customers, and potentially affected communities.

However, most companies (70.18 percent) have not announced a zero tolerance policy 3-79

against harassment, threats, violence, punishment, surveillance, or physical or legal attacks against human defenders and those lawfully exercising their rights and freedom of expression, association, assembly and peaceful protest. There are also no measures or programs to support the work of human rights defenders, reflecting that most companies do not pay much attention to the issue of human rights defenders.

In addition, most companies (58 percent) do not have a policy for the consultation with ethnic groups/local communities, while some companies may have conducted such consultation but it has not been publicly disclosed.

In terms of human rights due diligence, the survey found that 47.37 percent of the companies indicated that they have conducted human rights due diligence, while 52.63 percent of the companies have never conducted human rights risk and impact audit. However, based on its detailed analysis, the research team found that there was a discrepancy in the survey results.

That is, most companies with high level of readiness (71.43 percent) have never conducted human rights risk and impact audit; and the only company that had previously conducted such audit had done so only once. Meanwhile, the survey results of companies with moderate and low level of readiness indicated that they have conducted human rights risk and impact audit more than once.

On this issue, the research team found that the conflicting findings may have been caused by the respondents not having sufficient knowledge or understanding about the human rights risk and impact auditing process. The research team will apply the results of the in-depth interviews to support the analysis in the next chapter.

For companies which stated that they have conducted human rights risk and impact audit, they had to answers whether they have integrated the findings from human rights risk and impact assessments in the development of human rights risk prevention or mitigation measures; how have they evaluated and improved the effectiveness of human rights operations; and whether human rights performance has been publicly disclosed.

According to the survey, nearly half of companies integrated their findings from human rights risk and impact assessment, whereby the findings were used to improve and prevent potential risks. Clear action plan and targets were defined and the effectiveness of human rights operations of the company was evaluated and improved. However, such effectiveness evaluation was an internal operation with limited participation from NGOs or human rights experts. However, 3-80

nearly half of the companies that reported that they have conducted human rights risk and impact audit, annually disclose their human rights performance.

In the overview regarding grievance handling, it was found that the majority of the companies (92.98 percent) have provided a grievance channel and many companies have more than one channel, i.e., email, website, internal grievance system, letters, and grievance centers, etc. The companies have received grievances from multiple groups of stakeholders, putting their employees as the first priority, followed by customer, general public, suppliers in the supply chain, potentially affected communities, employees of suppliers, and communities of suppliers, respectively. Every company has made available a grievance channel in Thai, while some companies have provided such channel in English. There is only one company that has provided the grievance channel in a third language being Myanmar and Cambodian. In addition, most companies disclosed their grievance process/mechanism, as well as information pertaining to such grievances (54.79 percent). However, the majority of the companies have not yet established a process where stakeholders can co-design and develop the efficiency of the grievance mechanisms/channels (62.26 percent).

Most companies (71.93 percent) have privacy protection policies for complainants and some companies have an NGO-based grievance mechanism. However, according to the survey results, most companies do not have a non-retaliation policy against filing of grievance or concerns. In addition, most companies (54.39 percent) do not have a remediation policy for victims of human rights violations.

In the overview of requiring suppliers in the supply chain to respect human rights, it was found that most companies neither have a policy nor require suppliers to publicly declare policies/commitments to respect human rights principles. Companies did not require their suppliers to have: an overtime policy or maximum working hours; policy for the consultation with ethnic groups/local communities; approach on receiving of grievances from stakeholders; remediation mechanism for those whose human rights is negatively affected. The companies also did not require suppliers to conduct human rights risk and impact assessment. However, the research team noted that some respondents were unaware or unable to provide information on how their companies had established policies for suppliers to respect human rights, which may have contributed to the inability of the survey results to reflect the entire reality.

3-81

Chapter 4 Results of in-depth interviews to survey human rights due diligence readiness of companies The research team selected the following companies in Thailand and relevant stakeholders for an in-depth interview on the company's human rights due diligence readiness: 7 large companies (distributed across multiple industries) 7 small and medium-sized companies (distributed across multiple industries) 6 relevant stakeholders, such as government agencies, civil society, human rights experts The research team has prepared the following criteria for the selection of companies for the in-depth interviews: 1) The company has to be listed in "THSI Sustainable Stocks" or has announced a human rights policy or conducted a human rights due diligence (HRDD) or disclosed human rights/labor rights risks.

2) The company applied or has applied to be a human rights model organization of the Rights and Liberties Protection Department, Ministry of Justice.

3) For small or medium-sized company, a company within the supply chain of a large company may be selected.

4) The size of the company is categorized in accordance with the definition of the Office of SMEs Promotion (OSMEP), as follows: Type of business

Medium-sized companies Large companies (L) (M) No. of No. of No. of Annual Annual Annual employees employees revenue employees revenue revenue (THB Million) (persons) (THB Million) (persons) (THB Million) (persons)

Manufacturing Service/Wholesa le/Retail

Small companies (S)

< 100 < 50

< 50 < 30

100 – 500 50 – 300

Source: OSMEP

4-1

50 – 200 30 – 100

> 500 > 300

> 200 > 100

The research team conducted an in-depth interview with 23 companies to survey the human rights due diligence readiness of the companies during the 26th of September 2022 – 11th of January 2023, consisted of: 1) 10 Large companies No. 1

Name Waraphat Himmuden

2

Voraphat Lertanantrakool

3

Samatcha Promsiri

4

Worawat Sriyuk

5

Nittaya Nimitpornsuko

6

Thanat Rakpetch

7

Nithicha Cheevanorasuchakul

8

Pirada Pookboonmee

9

Nintira Apisingh

10

Prapasri Puntujariya

Position Director of Risk Management and Sustainable Development Human Resources Management Chief Executive Officer of Human Resources Director of Sustainable Corporate Management Deputy Manager of Sustainable Development Director of Organizational Development and Employee Engagement Corporate Governance Department Corporate Governance Department Senior Vice President Executive Manager of Sustainability

Company Haad Thip Public Company Limited Thai Union Group Public Company Limited Sansiri Public Company Limited Mitr Phol Sugar Corporation., Ltd. Mitr Phol Sugar Corporation., Ltd. Betagro Public Company Limited

Date 6 Oct 22

IRPC Public Company Limited

17 Oct 22

IRPC Public Company Limited

17 Oct 22

Bangchak Corporation Public Company Limited Bangchak Corporation Public Company Limited

14 Nov 22

Company

Date

7 Oct 22 7 Oct 22 11 Oct 22 11 Oct 22 12 Oct 22

14 Nov 22

2) 7 small and medium-sized companies No. Name Medium-sized companies 1 Company representative* 2 3

Company representative* Kochaporn Chankaew

Small companies 1 Urai Suksawat

Position Senior Human Resource Officer Human Resources Manager Business owner

Rice product manufacturer

4 Oct 22

Real estate developer SKC HouseLand export Kadphat Trade

7 Oct 22 17 Oct 22

Business owner

Chokudomrat

28 Feb 22

4-2

No. 2 3 4

Name Position Company Surat Rattanasitorn Business owner N. Lapprasert fishing vessel Sangchai Theerakulwanich President advisor/Director Right Reactivation PCL Piman Tovanabutra Managing director and SOAP-n-SCENT Co., Ltd. business owner

Date 10 Oct 22 25 Oct 22 11 Jan 23

Remarks: * Undisclosed identity of the interviewee and respective companies 3) 3 government agencies and relevant organizations No. 1

Name Norathep Boonkeb

2

Nareeluc Pairchaiyapoom

3

Vinita Kultangwattana

Position President of Business Law Development and SME Assistance Director of International Human Rights Division Director of Corporate Governance and Sustainability Promotion

Organization The Federation Thai SMEs

Date 29 Sep 22

Rights and Liberties Protection 3 Oct 22 Department, Ministry of Justice Office of the Securities and 18 Oct 22 Exchange Commission

4) 3 experts and civil society No.

Name

Position

Organization

Date

1

Supaporn Malailoy

Manager

EnLAW THAI Foundation

2

Sor Rattanamanee Polkla

Attorney and coordinator

3

Sompong Srakaew

Director

Community Resource Centre 8 Oct 22 Foundation Labour Promotion Network 11 Oct 22

26 Sep 22

The research team summarized the findings from the in-depth interviews with large, mediumsized and small companies; government agencies and related organizations, as well as experts and civil society, with details as follows: 4.1 Large companies 4.1.1 Understanding and importance of human rights on the operation of Thai companies Representatives of large companies (“Representatives”) defined human rights as fundamental rights that everyone should enjoy equitably and equally. Such rights include: right to access basic necessities; right to a good quality of life; right to a healthy environment, etc. Human rights is the issue that covers multiple aspects of a company’s operations, especially good corporate governance, human resource supervision, as well as sustainability operations of the company. Most of the 4-3

representatives viewed that human rights protection is connected to the implementation of Thai law only in respect of labor laws, but not the regulation of rights in other aspects of the stakeholders in the supply chain, i.e., rights of children, women's rights, or the right to a healthy environment. It is, therefore, highly recommended for Thai businesses to adhere to human rights practices based on the international agreements or principles, as they contained details and focused on human rights sub-issues surpassing the requirements of Thai legislations.

In addition, most of the representatives viewed that human rights issues play a significant role in the current business operation. Since human rights is one of the goals of the company's sustainability performance that involve stakeholders throughout the supply chain. Also, the current business operations are audited by both suppliers and customers, requiring the company to comply with international laws and standards on human rights.

4.1.2 Human rights operations of Thai companies at present Human rights policies and practices From the interviews with the representatives, most companies have publicly disclosed their clear human rights policies, in line with international laws and standards, i.e., labor law, UNGPs, humanitarian and rights principles of the International Labour Organization, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, trade ethics audits in accordance with the rules of SEDEX2 (Supplier Ethical Data Exchange) (to be explained in detail). Such human rights policies will cover the operation of the companies, the companies under common control, and the suppliers are also expected to adhere to such principles.

Some representatives indicated that the company has established a code of conduct or labor standards as a guideline to regulate the workforce of the company, its affiliates, and suppliers, ensuring compliance with its human rights policy. The code of conduct or standards will be in line with the laws of Thailand and international human rights standards, such as non-discrimination, nonuse of child and forced labor, fair wages, occupational health and safety, appropriate working hours, and freedom of association.

Most companies have not yet established a dedicated human rights working group, but they have assigned such duty to departments that are involved with human rights operations, such as corporate governance, human resources, sustainability department, etc. Such departments can 2 https://www.sedex.com/our-services/smeta-audit/

4-4

formulate human rights policies and regulate the human rights issues of the company. They have to communicate the human rights policies throughout the supply chain and to internal stakeholders through training, newsletter or intranet system, as well as to external stakeholders through annual meetings, websites, and annual reports.

Some representatives might have established a well-defined human rights working group or a working group specifically responsible for human rights works. In addition to communicating and providing training on human rights issues to employees, suppliers and related persons of the company, the working group is also responsible for conducting human rights due diligence from upstream to downstream.

Grievance and remediation mechanisms Most companies have clear and publicly available grievance channels, whereby they will receive complaints via letter, email and web-based whistleblowing channels. All groups of stakeholders can file a grievance on violations of law, rules, regulations, as well as human rights, through such channels. Identity of the complainant will be protected pursuant to the requirements of personal data protection law. In addition, representatives of some companies have established grievance channels, having non-profit institutions as a third party to specifically handle labor grievances.

However, most of the representatives stated that they had never received any grievance on the issue of human rights from the stakeholders through the provided channels, as most of the grievances are related to internal operations, i.e., corruption, conflicts of interest, etc. In the case of a grievance from external stakeholders, most of the time the issues would be related to the quality of the products and services of the company. However, the representatives viewed that human rights issues are relatively new to the Thai society, hence, there have been no grievances on the issue of human rights violations filed through the channels provided by the company.

Representatives of some companies indicated that most workers in the supply chain who have been violated or treated unfairly prefer to file a grievance directly to a civil society organization, as they do not trust the channels provided by the company. If there is an actual human rights violation, most representatives will take corrective as well as remedial actions for the stakeholders whose human rights have been violated on a case-by-case basis.

Determination of policy and practices for suppliers Most companies have guidelines for the annual communication and training of the 4-5

company's human rights policy to their suppliers. In terms of the knowledge and understanding of human rights issues of the suppliers, most representatives indicated that major suppliers have the knowledge and understanding of human rights issues to a certain extent. Meanwhile, knowledge and understanding of human rights issues still need to be closely and continuously formed for small suppliers, so as to raise their awareness and for them to continuously carry out human rights actions in accordance with the policy of the company.

However, most companies have not established a clear policy or clearly required their suppliers to respect and comply with international human rights principles. Instead, they focus on establishing a code of conduct, standards or practices of labor that are in line with international human rights laws and principles, in order to require their suppliers to have operational guidelines that follow international human rights principles in their business transactions. This includes prohibition of child labor and forced labor, and non-discrimination, etc. Most companies have specifically stipulated such requirements in the procurement contracts or agreements entered into with the suppliers.

In addition, most of the representatives will adopt human rights issues as the criteria to consider whether to do business with every supplier. The human rights performance of the suppliers will be evaluated every year, to determine whether their performance complies with the code of conduct, standards, or labor practices of the company. Most companies will choose not to conduct business with the suppliers from the beginning, if it is found that the supplier is unable to comply with the code of conduct, standards or labor practices of the company. This precaution is to prevent suppliers that may potentially violate human rights from becoming part of the company's supply chain. However, if the company found that suppliers in the supply chain violate human rights, most companies will progressively handle such violation, starting with a warning to termination of business. Some representatives stated that if human rights violations are found, the company will not immediately cease doing business with the supplier. Instead, the company will provide assistance and suggest guidelines to the suppliers first, so that they have an opportunity to improve their operational guidelines to be in accordance with the code of conduct, standards or labor practices of the company, allowing the supplier to continue doing business with the company. However, if the suppliers choose not to improve its operation, it is necessary to terminate the business operations between them. Most of the time, suppliers that are unable to proceed with the policy or practices of the company are small suppliers.

4-6

Conducting human rights due diligence The research team interviewed representatives of large companies that have and have not yet conducted human rights due diligence, having the details are as follows: 4.1.3

Companies that have conducted human rights due diligence For companies that have conducted human rights due diligence, the reasons behind such conduct are different from one to the other. The representatives have stated that human rights due diligence was necessary as there have been human rights violations within the supply chain, such as the use of child labor, forced labor, and trafficking in persons within the supply chain.

Conducting human rights due diligence also helps the company in identifying the risks within the supply chain, as well as finding solutions to address such risks. Some representatives conducted human rights due diligence as a tool to audit human rights risk issues of the company and to prevent potential human rights risks that may arise from the operations of suppliers and/or customers in the supply chain that affects the community.

Most companies conduct human rights due diligence on an annual basis, whereby they might have established a working group to conduct a human rights due diligence and employ experts or third parties to provide advice and participate in human rights due diligence process.

Representative of each company will prepare a stakeholder mapping, consisting of: the company, affiliates, suppliers, joint ventures and other stakeholders who may be involved in the business operations of the company.

Some representatives viewed that the human rights due diligence is relatively consistent with the engagement and materiality analysis of stakeholders within the supply chain. The process covers the hearing of issues, grievances, as well as auditing of labor operations of the supplier which shall comply with the requirements and practices of the company. Representatives who have previously conducted the engagement and materiality analysis of stakeholders within the supply chain will improve and add the step of human rights due diligence into the engagement and materiality analysis, making it easier for the company to proceed.

For human rights risks of large companies, most companies have labor-related risks, such as forced labor, child labor, discrimination, fair wages, occupational health and safety, etc. Some representatives viewed that the priority given to each risk issue cannot be reduced. They should remain the highest priority, so that the issue does not affect the business operations and to ensure the business can be operated sustainably. However, some representatives believe that human 4-7

rights due diligence cannot prevent all human rights violations that may potentially occur to the company.

Companies that have not conducted human rights due diligence Most of the companies that have never conducted human rights due diligence have set the goal to do so within the next 2-3 years, but no clear implementation plan has been made yet since they are still unable to specify the responsible department. Some representatives viewed that human rights due diligence is a sensitive matter for suppliers. In other words, many suppliers are not ready to be audited as they perceive themselves as not having sufficient knowledge and understanding of human rights issues. Also, if human rights due diligence is carried out, it will increase the accountability of the suppliers.

Some representatives stated that the company has co-created projects with civil society organizations to provide human rights due diligence service to suppliers who are willing to do so.

The purpose of such initiative is to communicate and impart knowledge and understanding for suppliers on human rights issues, in terms of child labor, retaining migrant workers and retaining female workers. It is expected that the implementation of such projects will contribute to the company having a better-defined guideline for human rights due diligence in the future.

Some representatives stated that although the company may not have conducted human rights due diligence, the company did hold discussions with employees to investigate whether employees were experiencing inequality at work, or to what extent do the employees think human rights are involved in their lives. Also, employees’ job satisfaction survey was conducted on an annual basis.

4.1.4 Problems, challenges and limitations of human rights due diligence Companies that have conducted human rights due diligence For companies that have conducted human rights due diligence, the challenges and limitations of human rights due diligence process can be categorized into 3 main issues: 1) The lack of readiness of small-scale suppliers: most representatives indicated that their suppliers are small businesses and do not have the readiness to improve or modify their operational guidelines to be in line with the risk mitigation measures after human rights due diligence was conducted. The company should allow some adaptation period for the suppliers, including prepare operational improvement plan for the suppliers to comply with measures set by the company.

4-8

2) Applying human rights principles to business operations is still a challenge in some cases: some representatives viewed human rights operations as expansive and detailed. The person responsible for conducting human rights due diligence would require a long period of time to study and comprehend the details. Also, the actual application of human rights principles to business operations remains challenging in some area, i.e., applying human rights issue in the decision to grant financial support to the company’s clients when the representatives are not aware of the human-related aspects that need to be reviewed, since the business of each client is different. This includes [the decision to] do business with a supplier not potentially involved in a human rights risk, i.e., is human rights due diligence necessary for supplier in advertising or application development business?

3) Constraints in communicating and understanding human rights issues with every stakeholder in the supply chain: most representatives are from large companies with a large number of suppliers in the supply chain, which complicates the communication and the effort to create understanding for the stakeholders and it remains a challenge for large companies. Most representatives viewed that strengthening human rights knowledge among the company's stakeholders is a necessity. Such stakeholders include internal personnel, affiliates, and suppliers to ensure that they have similar knowledge. It is also necessary to expand the body of knowledge for the stakeholders, so that they understand the importance of human rights due diligence towards business operations, as well as making human rights due diligence more transparent.

Companies that have not conducted human rights due diligence For companies that have not conducted human rights due diligence, the challenges and limitations of human rights due diligence process can be categorized into 2 main issues: 1) Companies and suppliers lack the knowledge on human rights due diligence: human rights due diligence remains a new and challenging matter for Thailand. Some representatives stated that the body of knowledge or information on human rights prepared by various agencies or organizations is often a foundation knowledge to educate the importance of human rights issues and what is human rights due diligence. But there is no knowledge or information that educates the companies on how to conduct human rights due diligence.

Some representatives understood that human rights due diligence is the same as stakeholder engagement. Companies have conducted stakeholder engagement among their employees, customers, communities and societies, consumers, partners, suppliers, business allies, 4-9

shareholders and investors, media and government agencies, according to the guidelines determined by the Stock Exchange.

If the company is required to conduct human rights due diligence, it is essential for them to be supported with the body of knowledge on human rights and human rights due diligence, so that they recognize the importance and necessity of having human rights operations, as well as having the guidelines that enable the company to conduct human rights due diligence. Some representatives viewed that the due diligence may start internally and with suppliers who have knowledge and understanding of human rights and human rights due diligence, to visualize clearer guideline for the process.

2) The companies still lack the establishment of a working group for human rights due diligence: according to interviews with the representatives of companies that have not conducted human rights due diligence, it was found that most of them have not clearly defined a department responsible for human rights operations. This is because human rights issues encompass the operations of many departments (good corporate governance, human resources, and sustainability). It is, therefore, unclear as to which department should be designated as the main responsible entity for the operation. As a result, the company did not know how it should embark on the human rights due diligence journey.

4.1.5 Human rights due diligence promotion and support From the interviews with the representatives, similar recommendations were given by both companies that have and have never conducted human rights due diligence: there is an expectation that government agencies will contribute to the creation of knowledge in conducting human rights due diligence for Thai companies through organizations of seminars or trainings, to enable the companies to recognize the importance and understand how human rights issues, as well as human rights due diligence, are essential to the company's operations. Knowledge and problems shall be exchanged among companies in each industry, so that government agencies can assess how they can formulate a roadmap to drive the company to conduct human rights due diligence.

In addition, government agencies need to communicate and encourage human rights due diligence to be conducted in a wider range of industrial sectors, so that they can gain an overview of each industry, the situations and risks in human rights issues.

4.1.6 Opinions on the actions of the European Union to enhance the human rights 4-10

operation of Thai companies Most companies are not yet aware of the European Union's preparation for the enactment of sustainability due diligence legislation. However, representatives of companies that have conducted human rights due diligence indicated that they are ready to comply with such legislation of the European Union. They viewed that such legislation should be similar to the guidelines on human rights operations being implemented by the company.

4.2 Small and Medium-sized companies 4.2.1 Understanding and importance of human rights on the operation of Thai companies From the interviews with representatives of small and medium-sized companies (Rrepresentatives), human rights was defined as a fundamental right that all human beings should enjoy equally within the scope of the law. Most representatives perceived that human rights are about nurturing the rights and welfare of employees and workers, i.e., non-discrimination treatment between Thai and migrant workers, non-exploitation between employers and employees, and etc.

Therefore, most representatives believed that companies that focus on human rights issues must offer equity, liberty, and social equality both in terms of gender, disability, the seniority to retain their employees and workers. Employees and workers at all levels of the organization should be able to voice their opinions, suggestions, and complaints. The company shall not deprive them of their fundamental rights that they are entitled to in the workplace, i.e., non-violation of privacy and confidential information.

Some companies have imposed labor welfare policies that surpass the requirements of the law, such as offering 4-5 months of maternity leave with regular pay (the law requires maternity leave to be 98 days or about 3 months); providing educational support for employees' children and scholarships for employees with high determination; granting higher number of holidays than the annual holidays required by law; offering snacks and refreshments for employees (e.g. instant noodles, coffee); providing employees’ uniforms and having safety equipment for field work (shoes, helmets), etc.

The reason why most companies have started to focus on human rights issues is because they are preparing for the listing on the stock exchange. Also, at present, client companies have begun to conduct audits both in terms of quality and operations that have to be more in line with human rights principles. Particularly for companies that export products as they have to be subject to intensive audit by the customers to ensure compliance with the national laws and human rights 4-11

principles.

4.2.2

Human rights operations of Thai companies at present Human rights policies and practices From the interviews with the representatives, it was found that most companies do not have human rights policies. However, they have labor practices as required by law, covering matters such as legal wages, higher wages for skilled and experienced workers, renewal of non-Thai ID cards for migrant workers, for which the company will cover all expenses of renewal, etc.

Some representatives have prepared human rights policies which have not been made public. Or if they are publicly disclosed, they may not be communicated directly to relevant stakeholders, but merely disclosure of content on the website. The representatives provided that they have established 3 main forms of human rights policies and practices, as follows: 1) By referencing or implementing international standards, i.e., referencing human rights operations in accordance with international human rights principles and labor standards, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the UNGPs. Such policies cover combating trafficking in persons, forced labor, child labor, non-discrimination, combating all forms of sexual harassment and violation, exercising the right to assemble, right to collective bargaining, and equal compensation.

For some companies that export products to the European Union, they have to join the Supplier Ethical Data Exchange (SEDEX) platform. This platform offers information on supply chain ethics for the exportation of products to Europe, for companies that prioritize occupational safety of workers throughout the supply chain3. Companies participating in the SEDEX platform will be able to participate in supply chain ethics assessments through 2 main tools: Self-Assessment Questionnaire (SAQ) which focuses on 4 main issues: labor standards, health and safety standards, environmental management system, and corporate code of conduct 4.

The assessment questionnaire also refers to international human rights standards, such as the UNGPs and Corporate Human Rights Benchmark (CHRB), etc.

Participating companies can undergo supply chain audits in accordance with the SEDEX Members Ethical Trade Audit (SMETA), which is a regulation used by SEDEX member companies to assess ethics and social responsibility throughout their supply chain, as well as to audit that there 3 https://www.sedex.com/about-us/ 4 https://www.sedex.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Self-Assessment-Questionnaire-SAQ-Briefing-Note-ENG.pdf

4-12

is no human rights violation in the labor usage of the company, i.e., child or forced labor, etc.5 2) By referencing the criteria of large companies listed on the Stock Exchange: the companies have studied the human rights information/policies of large real estate companies listed on the Stock Exchange as a guidance for their human rights and sustainability operations.

3) By referencing the criteria of the Stock Exchange: as some companies are preparing for listing in the stock exchange, hence, they have considered numerous issues to determine how their business operations can be developed; and what are the necessary components for the listing of the company. They found that a corporate code of conduct must be established, and declaration of human rights policy is one of the requirements.

In addition, from the interviews with the representatives, the majority of the companies do not have a specific human rights working group established, but it will be integrated within other departments that are responsible for human rights and labor issues, such as human resources department, sustainability department, etc.

Grievance and remediation mechanisms From the interviews with the representatives, it was found that most companies have 2 main channels to receive grievances from the stakeholders, as follows: 1) Channels to receive grievance from employees: some companies have set up channels for employees to submit grievances by creating QR codes that employees can scan to report their grievances using the company's template. In addition, grievances can be submitted through the intranet, website, and LINE application of the company. Employees can also report any grievances directly to their supervisors if they encounter problems at work.

2) Channels to receive grievances from third parties: from the interviews, it was found that some companies have established a channel to receive grievance from third parties.

Grievances can be accepted through mobile phones or LINE applications created by the company.

However, most companies do not have a well-established channel to receive grievances from third parties. Some companies provided that they receive grievances from the local authorities. If a third party or local communities in the company's area of operation have a grievance against the company, they can submit it through local authorities such as municipalities, sub-district administrative organizations (SAOs) or various government agencies in the area. In this regard, some 5 https://www.sedex.com/our-services/smeta-audit/

4-13

of the representatives initiate community engagement to reduce conflicts that may arise from the company's operations. The company will organize open house activities (opening the factory for people in the community to visit) and support the local communities through the purchase of community products to make souvenirs (creating jobs for the surrounding communities), in order to build trust between the company and the community.

From the interview, it was found that each company receives different grievances, and each has different grievance handling guideline. For example, companies in the fishery sector receive complaints from employees and workers about accidents at work. From this, the companies will provide social security for the employees and workers as a standard practice, so that they can exercise their rights. Companies in the energy sector receive grievances from the surrounding communities regarding concerns over air pollution, and the safety of life and property, etc.

Meanwhile, companies in the real estate sector receive grievances from customers living in the company's real estate projects, such as complaints about driveway parking, pet-related problems between the houses, and etc. The company will mediate the conflicts between the residents. Companies in the consumer goods sector receive grievances from employees and workers relating to workplace conflicts which the company has mediated problems between employees so that they can continue to work together. Also, there are grievances from the communities surrounding the company’s plant relating to odor caused by manufacturing process.

The company has modified the ventilation system so that the smell does not disturb the community, etc. It can be said that each company receives complaints according to the nature of its business. However, most companies do not have written remediation guidelines, but they will consider remediation on a case-by-case basis and provide remedies according to each company's norms. Responsible person will be assigned to handle the grievance and the handling period will be designated accordingly.

Establishing policies and practices for suppliers From the interviews with the representatives, it was found that companies that have established human rights policies and practices for their suppliers, will also set out the policies and practices for their suppliers, focusing on employee and worker retention. Such policies and practices may include legal minimum wages, overtime payment, prohibition against employing underage worker (less than 18 years old), and high wage for skilled labor, and etc. The suppliers of the company have to comply with the specified policies. In addition, some companies have a 4-14

supplier assessment system in accordance with ISO 9001:2008 which quarterly assesses product quality, environment, and occupational health and safety (human rights issues are included in the quality audit). However, some companies might have established practices on employee and worker retention in the sale and purchase agreements or contracts entered into with the supplier.

While some companies may not have well-established practices, they will discuss and consult about the guidelines for employee and worker management expected of the suppliers.

For the operational auditing process of the suppliers, most companies mainly visit and inspect the actual operating areas of the suppliers. If it is found that the supplier does not comply with the guidelines set by the company, the company will, firstly, notify the supplier to improve and correct such incompliance. However, if the supplier is unable to improve and correct such incompliance, the company will terminate the sale and purchase agreement between them.

However, some representatives provided that most suppliers of their companies are certified according to Thai labor standards. Therefore, there has never been an incident of contract termination as a result of human rights issues. Termination of trade agreements by the company mostly arises from low-quality or sub-standard production issues.

4.2.3 Conducting human rights due diligence Representatives of all small and medium-sized companies interviewed by the research team have never conducted a human rights due diligence. The research team found that most companies still lack the understanding of the human rights due diligence process, as well as not knowing how to undertake such process.

However, as already mentioned above, some companies that export products to the European Union and joined the SEDEX platform would have undergone a self-assessment that prioritizes labor standards, safety and health, environmental management system, and corporate code of conduct, which are based on international human rights standards, i.e., the UNGPs. The company can conduct audits of companies in the supply chain, in order to assess ethics and social responsibility throughout the supply chain, as well as internal labor management to ensure that there is no human rights violation.

In addition, some companies are also audited and assessed about their labor management by external agency. The labor inspectors from the Department of Labor Protection and Welfare will come to inspect and conduct interviews with the workers on an annual basis.

Some companies may be directly audited by their customers. The representatives 4-15

provided that for companies that export products to customers in the United State of America and the European Union, customers from both countries will evaluate and audit the company's human rights operations. Thus, the company needs to have well-defined and written human rights policies and practices. However, the human rights assessment and audit guidelines applied by customers of both countries are different, having the details as follows: 1) Assessment and audit by customers in the United States of America: the company will be audited by the customer's auditor once a year. The audit will mainly be based on Thai labor standards, and the safety of the operation area will be audited to see if it complies with other requirements outside the Thai labor standards, i.e., having sufficient fire escapes, sprinkler extinguisher, sufficiently located and ready-to-use fire extinguishers, etc.

2) Assessment and audit by customers in the European Union: the company will be audited through an assessment form once a year. The assessment form contains questions relating to human and labor rights operation. Particularly for EU customers who are members of the World Fair Trade Organization (WFTO), the company would be expected to implement human and labor rights operations in accordance with the 10 principles of fair trade, which cover human rights issues. The representatives stated that companies chose to join the WFTO in order to gain recognition from customers in the European Union and to streamline the process of human rights audits from customers.

As each company has received human rights standards and have their human rights operations evaluated and audited by external agencies and overseas customers, it is reflected that in practice, these companies may have been undertaking actions on human rights-related issues to a certain extent and they can be scaled up to proceed with human rights due diligence.

4.2.4

Problems, challenges and limitations of human rights due diligence From the interviews with the representatives, it was found that the knowledge and understanding of human rights of business operators, employees, and workers remains a major obstacle for the human rights due diligence process. Most companies viewed that their employees and workers do not have the knowledge of human rights issues. Particularly, companies that employ migrant workers often face with a language barrier, which can result in inaccurate results in the human rights assessment and audit conducted by suppliers and customers since the migrant workers may miss the point or do not understand the question. For example, they may be asked if the company has provided housing, which it has, and they may 4-16

refuse, or whether the company has paid the wages pursuant to the law, and the workers may say that they are paid on time, etc. This may deviate the result of the assessment of the company.

Some representatives view that the main obstacle that stops human rights issues from being prioritized for the business sector in Thailand is the lack of social conscience mindset of the business operators, both in the environmental and human rights issues. Also, the lack of awareness on how human rights can contribute to the business growth. On the one hand, the representatives viewed that this may be due to the overall economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, resulting in the Thai business sector having to rehabilitate their own business as a priority. When the business improves, they will start to pay attention to and focus on the environmental and human rights issues.

Some companies do not realize the necessity of a human rights due diligence because their operations do not affect other stakeholders and most have not received a grievance from stakeholders other than workers. Therefore, most companies are not aware of the importance of conducting human rights due diligence.

However, the representatives viewed that to raise awareness on human rights in the business sector, it is highly crucial for consumers to be made aware and recognize the importance of human rights issues, as to put pressure on Thai businesses to take action on human rights. The representatives gave an example of customers in the European Union who refuse to consume products that violate human rights or cause environmental impacts. This includes not buying products that contain palm oil acquired from sources that intrude tropical forests as it affected the wildlife and tribal groups inhabiting that area, etc. Moreover, the fact that consumers are not aware of human rights issues may result in the inability to commercialize products by companies that have undertaken human rights actions. The product price will be higher due to the costs of human rights actions. In other words, consumers continue to prioritize the lower price rather than purchasing from business that does not violate human rights.

4.2.5

Human rights due diligence promotion and support From the interviews with the representatives, the following suggestions were proposed to promote and support human rights due diligence: 1) Relevant agencies should organize training on human rights due diligence in order foster knowledge and understanding on the matter and for the recognition of the benefits. Small 4-17

and medium-sized companies are of the view that it will be an ease of the process if the due diligence is consistent with the existing policies and practices of the companies. The training can be a short-term course for businesses that are about to be incorporated and the content should cover human rights in business operations; tax system in business operations, etc., which can contribute to building human rights foundation for the company.

2) Relevant agencies should establish a system or put in place a tool for human rights due diligence to be used for the inspection of companies in large quantity (if a human rights due diligence law is enacted). Because in-depth interviews may allow detailed information to be obtained, but it is not suitable for the auditing of companies in large numbers.

3) The Department of Labor Protection and Welfare, Ministry of Labour shall be the leading agency to emphasize the human rights issues in business operation, as the Department of Labor Protection and Welfare has extensive labor and business operator information. In addition, the representatives agreed that having the Department of Labor Protection and Welfare as a host, working alongside other relevant agencies, such as the Department of Business Development, Ministry of Commerce, and the Provincial Commercial Office, local administrative offices, etc., will be the key driver of human rights in the Thai private sector. The Department of Labor Protection and Welfare may provide educational courses that incorporate other content, such as labor standards, financial discipline, taxation, etc.

4) Relevant agencies should focus on issuing measures requiring large companies listed on the Stock Exchange to conduct human rights due diligence (the representatives viewed that these companies can create momentum for small and medium-sized companies in the supply chain). The measures can raise the human rights awareness among small and mediumsized companies as they will be doing business with the large companies. The representatives also proposed that small companies should comply with statutory labor standards as the fist step and they can scale up their effort to cover human rights due diligence in the future. In addition, the government should enact laws to promote the participation of the private sector in the process instead of law that focuses on arresting or imposing fines, as the private sector will be less cooperative.

4.3 Government agencies and relevant organizations 4.3.1 The importance of human rights issues on the operation of Thai companies From the interviews with the representatives of government agencies and relevant 4-18

organizations, it was found that human rights issues have become increasingly important to the business operations of Thai companies. Based on the statistical data on the increase of grievances on human rights violation, it reflects that human rights issues are related to the business sector and have become the issues that the business sector needs to pay more attention to. Also, the global trends put greater emphasis on human rights issues, as can be seen from: •

The UNGPs, which has been promulgated since 2011 and are currently under development as international law.

•

At the regional level, the European Union is in the process of drafting the EU Directive on Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence, which is very important because it requires businesses to conduct human rights impact audits throughout the supply chain. Thai companies in the supply chain of companies in the European Union must, therefore, be more cautious about their human rightsrelated actions.

•

At the national level, currently, many countries have enacted specific human rights due diligence laws, which have become a global trend setter. This is the issue that Thai businesses need to focus on. In addition, at present, the Office of Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) have adjusted its regulations to combine the Annual Registration Statement (Form 56-1) and Annual Report (Form 56-2) into a single report (Form 56-1 One Report), in order to reduce the burden of preparing and submitting the annual report of listed companies. Moreover, the consolidation of the report can enhance the company's sustainability (ESG) disclosure to reflect its concrete path towards sustainability which is an important impetus for companies in Thailand to be aware of human rights issues. Also, Thailand is applying to join the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), it is required to comply with the OECD due diligence guidance for responsible business conduct, which covers human rights issues.

4.3.2 Problems, concerns and challenges of business operation and human rights in Thailand According to the interviews, it was found that Thai companies do not sufficiently 4-19

understand human rights issues. They do not know what a clear definition of human rights is, even though the operations of the companies may already involve multiple aspects of human rights. Such aspects are, for example, labor or environmental issues, or the current trend in the business sector on bio-circular-green economy, or carbon management, etc. These are issues involving multiple human rights aspects.

In the overview, companies that understand human rights issues are mostly companies in the supply chain of the European Union. However, for companies not involved in such supply chain or those without international transactions, they may not have much understanding about the issues. These companies often understand that a human rights due diligence is when someone inspects the company's operations or that it increases costs or expenses of the operation.

When considering the understanding of human rights issues of large companies, including companies listed on the Stock Exchange, it was found that each company still has a different understanding of human rights issues. Not only the companies themselves, but also their personnel at the management and operational levels. For example, employees are not aware that their company has already announced a human rights policy, or that many companies assigned the human resources department to be responsible for human rights issues, focusing mainly the labor issues and not other human rights issues, etc.

For small and medium-sized companies, it was found that most of them still do not understand much about human rights issues, particularly the small companies, as they still focus on business operations, income or returns, rather than human rights issues. In other words, small companies prioritize its business, i.e., the revenue, once the revenue is sufficient, then the focus will be on human rights. Meanwhile, medium-sized companies have started to take human rights issues to another level, i.e., labor rights which affect the business, to which employers need to pay a certain level of attention, etc. However, medium-sized business operators tend to focus more on human rights issues that affect business operations, and not putting much importance on overall human rights issues.

Based on the overall implementation of the National Action Plan on Business and Human Rights Phase 1, it was found that the responses to the NAP remained concentrated among participating large companies. The proportion of the participating small and mediumsized companies is less than half of all SMEs. The Rights and Liberties Protection Department, 4-20

Ministry of Justice, seeks to expand cooperation to more SMEs through cooperation with agencies such as the Board of Trade of Thailand, the Federation of Thai Industries and the Federation of Thai SMEs, and etc., as well as collaborating with the United Nations Development Programme Thailand (UNDP Thailand) to provide training on human rights issues to SMEs. However, the responses from SMEs in each province depends on the strength of the Federation of Thai SMEs in each province as well (strong Federation of Thai SMEs in each province can encourage participation among many entrepreneurs).

In addition, NAP has established guidelines for monitoring and evaluation of the 4 key priority areas: (1) labor, (2) community, land, natural resources and environment, (3) human rights defenders, and (4) international investment and multinational enterprises. In the past, the business sector focused mainly on the disclosure of issues relating to labor, and community, land, natural resources and environment (detailed data reporting). Meanwhile, the disclosure remained at minimum for the issues of human rights defenders, and international investment and multinational enterprises, which gained significant attention among the civil society sectors (businesses do not see how they are relevant), reflecting the gaps that still exist.

On the issue of international investment and multinational enterprises, the Ministry of Commerce and the Board of Investment (BOI) are the regulators of foreign investment in Thailand. Even so, the issue of human rights is still not at the forefront of its focus (training on human rights issues is provided to foreign companies investing in Thailand, but not often).

Human rights violations were identified in cases of investments by Thai companies in foreign countries. Such violations include a number of incidents in neighboring countries: burning of sugarcane fields by a sugar company; oil spill incident; dam construction, and, etc.

However, currently there is no government agency stepping up as the main regulator for investments by Thai companies in foreign countries. Also, there is neither regulatory nor remediation mechanism. Even though there have been discussions among government agencies regarding this issue, it remains inconclusive. At present, it is upon the Guideline, Implementation Preparation, Monitoring and Evaluation Committee under the National Action Plan on Business and Human Rights to produce the recommendations.

4.3.3 Opinion on human rights due diligence of Thai companies Although small and medium-sized companies are currently not directly affected by 4-21

human rights due diligence, the interviewees forecasted that this requirement will be inevitable in the future. Also, even though some large companies might have conducted human rights due diligence, it was based on their own understanding, and some might have outsourced a third party to carry out the task, resulting in an ununiformed practice.

The interviewees noted that human rights issues are related to and encompass many other issues, i.e., labor rights, and such relevance brought about many relevant agencies, such as the Ministry of Labour, Rights and Liberties Protection Department, and etc. It was found that each agency has communicated and adopted different practices, causing confusion among the business operators.

The process of drafting human rights legislation is also challenging. At present, the agency in charge of drafting has to justify the necessity of such legislation to the Council of State and there is a panel of experts involved in the deliberation and approval. However, in the past, it was found that a number of draft legislations had not been approved by such consideration process. It is, therefore, a challenge for the agencies involved in the legislative drafting process.

To enhance human rights operations, the interviewees agreed that creation of knowledge and participation with business operators and having more forums available for them should be expedited as a number one priority, in order to significantly enhance the human rights operations of Thai companies. The interviewees noted that the term "human rights" is broad and sophisticated for small and medium-sized companies. But if the communication adopts simpler or more specific terms, such as labor rights, consumer rights, etc., or if the communication focuses on sustainability aspect, it will help create a better understanding for this group of business operators.

From the interview, it was found that the relevant agencies have begun to communicate and create understanding on the issue of business and human rights for the business operators. For example, the Federation of Thai SMEs has incorporated human rights issues into their operation with SMEs entrepreneurs; speakers were invited to provide training, and discussions were held with provincial chairpersons across the country; legal aid centers have been established (interpolating human rights issues in many activities); efforts on communication were made to ensure that entrepreneurs understand how human rights issues can affect the business. The Rights and Liberties Protection Department has proposed the 4-22

establishment of National Human Rights Steering Committee for all 77 provinces. The Committee shall be under the Ministry of Justice, chaired by the provincial governor, and include representatives from the Board of Trade of Thailand, Federation of Thai Industries, Federation of Thai SMEs of each province as part of the working groups to steer human rights issues at the provincial level. (Currently, Human Rights Sub-Steering Committees have been established at the provincial and Bangkok levels to drive human rights policies and plans in accordance with the human rights situation at the provincial and Bangkok level. (Ministry of Justice, 2023), etc.

In addition, incentivizing the company is another factor that makes Thai companies aware of human rights, i.e., giving business standards and human rights awards, etc. These incentives can make the company more interested in human rights. However, government agencies also need to increase communication and public relations to reach more entrepreneurs.

Interviewees proposed ways to develop and enhance human rights operations of small, medium-sized companies, as follows: Short term: The focus should be on building the body of knowledge so that entrepreneurs understand what human rights are. Human rights issues involved in business operations should be communicated using easily comprehensible terms, avoid using technical or big words that are difficult to understand. For instance, the concept of governance may not be understood by entrepreneurs, but if it is communicated as a matter of sustainability, entrepreneurs can easily comprehend such concept, etc. Medium-sized entrepreneurs should be able to understand and access basic human rights issues, such as labor rights, environment, consumer rights, which are the issues already stipulated by law. Therefore, the ability for entrepreneurs to comply with various legal requirements is considered to be an upgrade on their human rights operations to another level.

Medium term Human rights standards and practices should be established for implementation by entrepreneurs. For example, establishing the standards and practices on consumer rights (which are part of human rights) for entrepreneurs selling products online.

Based on which, the entrepreneurs will be required to clearly disclose the information that consumers require or are entitled to and how will entrepreneurs manage consumers’ information.

4-23

If the entrepreneur is unable to comply with such standards or practices, a developmental process should be provided for entrepreneurs. Government agencies should grant awards to organizations with outstanding human rights progress, so as to incentivize entrepreneurs to visualize the benefits of complying with human rights standards. Such benefits include being certified for its quality or making exports more convenient, etc. This level of improvement contributes to the companies’ readiness to comply with human rights due diligence legislation.

The interviewees suggested that government agencies should integrate inter-agency cooperation to streamline the practices of human rights due diligence which the business operators can consistently comprehend. This can also ensure that human rights operations head towards the same direction and align with international standards. Human rights issues should be set on the national agenda, with clearly defined and tangible subjects/topics/issues (theme), i.e., labor rights, etc. The designation allows better identification of the main responsible agency for that particular issue.

For the preparation of the draft human rights and business operations law, the interviewees considered it necessary to build the understanding for the business sector. Also, the legislation should have a promotional nature, allowing the business sector to realize the benefits from its implementation. This can reduce resistance and further incentivizes the business sector to comply with the law.

4.3.4 Opinions on the actions of the European Union to enhance the human rights operation of Thai companies From the interview, it was found that the Rights and Liberties Protection Department has not encountered any grievances about human rights violations of Thai Companies related to the European Union. The interviewee added that, there had been 2 grievances related to foreign companies: 1) The case where members of Triumph International Labor Union of Thailand, being employees of Brilliant Alliance Thai Global Co., Ltd. (formerly known as Triumph Factory), were unfairly dismissed6 due to the closure of the company by the owner (Hong Kong citizen). As a result, employees were terminated without advance notice and severance 6 https://prachatai.com/journal/2021/10/95363

4-24

pay. The union members complained to relevant agencies, including the Rights and Liberties Protection Department and Department of Labour, etc. From which, actions were taken by the agencies according to their mandate. The Rights and Liberties Protection Department issued a letter to the parent company in Hong Kong, demanding relief for the terminated employees. In addition, Victoria Secret, a hirer (partner), stepped in to help remedy the terminated employees.

2) The case of oil spill caused by a subsidiary of PTT in Australia, which also affected Indonesia, there was a call for the company and the Thai government to take responsibility for the impacts. PTT had provided help, remediation and rehabilitation already.

As for enhancing the human rights operations of Thai companies, the interviewees provided that companies in the European Union should have the following measures or guidelines to assist, promote, and support Thai companies that are their business partners to conduct better human rights due diligence: - The parent company should create a guideline, so that subsidiaries/companies in the supply chain know how they should proceed. Knowledge and understanding, as well as "mentorship" should be established, so that companies in the supply chain can rely on the practices and head towards the same direction, allowing them to the human rights due diligence as required.

- The government of each country should study the laws or practices under the EU due diligence laws, and simultaneously communicate, build knowledge and understanding for the companies in their own countries.

For the drafting of EU due diligence laws, the interviewees observed that the human rights due diligence practices under such laws should enable companies of all sizes to implement them. The legal provisions shall be neutral (no need to establish different practices for companies of different sizes). For example, companies shall be required to review their operations, identify human rights risks, and etc. However, in practice, companies of different sizes may have different level of advancement in their compliance.

4.4 Experts and civil society sector 4.4.1 The importance of human rights issues on the operation of Thai companies Based on interviews with human rights experts, they commented that the international community has become more aware of the human rights issues. Thai companies that have 4-25

already adopted a consistent view or been focusing on human rights issues will implement relevant principles. In the overview, however, most Thai companies still neither sufficiently understand nor prioritize human rights issues in business operations. This is especially true for small and medium-sized companies, as they tend to focus mainly on business operations. In other words, the business has to primarily survive or generate sufficient income or profit to some extent, and then the companies can focus on human rights or other issues as a second priority. In addition, most companies view human rights issues in a separate context from other issues, i.e., environmental or land rights issues. As a result, the companies may not understand the area of priority or on what issues they should be cautionary and refrain from causing impact.

In the past, many Thai companies have joined some human rights associations or projects, and many of them have received human rights awards from government agencies.

On the one hand, this can be a starting point for the companies to have higher awareness on human rights issues. However, the business operations of some of these companies also contributed to human rights violations. There is also a possibility that, in the future, there will be companies that work to promote the civil society sector or the environment, while at the same time, violate human rights.

4.4.2 Problems, concerns and challenges of business operation and human rights in Thailand Experts viewed that in the context of Thailand, no matter how the government might have announced or executed any documents on human rights issues in the global arena, if the internal processes are not adjusted to comply with international standards or if relevant agencies do not proactively take actions, there can be no instigation to change among the business sector.

Experts have cited the issue on the legislative drafting and disclosure of Pollutant Release and Transfer Register (PRTR) as an example. The civil society is trying to push forward this agenda, and the public hearings have already been conducted. Even though the business sector, the public and government agencies might have agreed with the draft bill, the actual promulgation of PRTR requires mechanisms and processes involving extensive amendment of other relevant laws. This is a major obstacle hindering the application and implementation of PRTR. 4-26

In cases related to the right to clean air, i.e., adjustment of the PM2.5 standard level, the Thai government did not adjust the PM2.5 standard level to be in accordance with international standards. This reflects that the government is not adequately recognizing the people's right to clean air. Subsequently, civil society sector had led a lawsuit against government agencies on such issues, which led to the adjustment of PM2.5 standard level in compliance with international standards. This issue reflects that the public and civil society sector are the ones who need to motivate the government to take action, when it should be the duty of the government to do so.

Experts viewed that there are gaps or curtailments in Thai laws that lead to violations of human rights. For example, even though the town planning legislation might have determined the zoning of factories and communities, there was an NCPO Order No. 4/2559 (2016) which allowed certain types of businesses, i.e., waste-related businesses, being business with environmental risks, to bypass the zoning consideration. In other words, a waste plant can be set up in any area. In addition, an amendment was made to the Ministerial Regulation, facilitating the construction of waste power plants without requiring them to prepare the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) reports, etc. Such legal gaps increase the risks that business operations of corporations may affect human rights, even though the company might claim that they comply with the law.

One example on the impact of legal gaps is: in the Eastern Economic Corridor (EEC) area, specific legislation has been enacted7 (EEC law) which facilitates the a higher number of operation of risky businesses in the area. In other words, it facilitates the operation of large businesses that do not take into account environmental issues. For example, the landfill business in the EEC area has been duly licensed by the state, but it was found that from then on, the communities in the area have been affected by such operation. In addition, the existing Factory Act is unable to provide efficient regulation, resulting in the inability to enforce or identify the person liable for the remedy. Furthermore, as this issue also involved entities of influence in the area, the human rights defenders in the area were harassed with death threats.

According to the experts, the provisions of the EEC law do not address human rights issues, and in practice there is no guideline on gaining participation or providing protection to people

7 Eastern Economic Corridor Act

4-27

in the area. This is a concern among human rights experts because the government has the intention to use the EEC area as a model for the creation of special economic zones in other areas.

It is evident that the experts primarily focus on the environmental issues as they are linked to human rights. This is particularly true for the matter of clean air and pollution from various industrial sectors, as it can have detrimental effects on the health and well-being of many people. At present, the environmental issue is recognized by the UN General Assembly (UNGA) as inextricably linked to human rights issues. Everyone has the right to live in a clean, hygienic and sustainable environment (ILO, 2022).

4.4.3 Opinions on human rights due diligence of Thai companies Experts agreed that the establishment of a human rights due diligence law is one mechanism that can drive better recognition of human rights in the country. Such legislation should cover businesses of all sizes, types, and may have different scope of implementation.

The experts cited an example where waste power plants of all sizes are required to prepare Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) report, however, experts are of the view that the reporting obligation should be adjusted to better suit the size of the power plant. Small waste power plants may be required to prepare reports that cover a smaller scope than larger waste power plants, for example. This concept may be applied to the draft human rights due diligence legislation as well.

In practice, Thai companies, especially large ones, do have the capacity to conduct human rights due diligence. However, many of them still lack an understanding of human rights issues and do not recognize the benefits of undertaking human rights-related actions.

For example, the company does not recognize that prioritizing human rights will enable the company to implement projects and coexist with the community without conflict. Therefore, in the past the company often failed to sufficiently prioritize community rights.

In addition, experts believed that the stakeholder engagement process and grievance handling mechanism are not efficient enough. For example, the implementation of mega projects which should require public advisory or public hearing with the communities or relevant stakeholders. The public advisory process should begin with the company providing or giving sufficient project details to stakeholders, so that they can study and understand the details of the project before holding a public meeting or a public hearing. However, in practice, 4-28

it was found that most companies did not provide such information and meetings were held with zero stakeholder participation. Therefore, stakeholders do not have sufficient information or are unable to make informed decisions due to lack of knowledge and understanding. In some cases, the company held meetings online without the inclusivity from the local community or those who are truly affected.

In addition, Thai companies often claim that they have established a grievance mechanism or channel. However, in the past, the resolution of grievances, especially ones relating to human rights, was often done extemporaneously or temporarily. The experts viewed that the business sector needs to enhance and develop effective grievance handling mechanisms that enables sustainable grievance resolution.

In summary, experts viewed that government agencies need to educate companies with knowledge and understanding to ensure that they recognize the benefits of human rights undertakings in the business operations. This is even more essential for small and mediumsized companies, which have not paid much attention to human rights issues. Incentives to encourage businesses to conduct human rights due diligence should also be established.

Government agencies that experts consider to be involved in the promotion or steering effort on this issue include the Rights and Liberties Protection Department and the Office of the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC). Moreover, the NHRC is an agency with existing information on human rights violations.

4.4.4 Opinions on the actions of the European Union to enhance the human rights operation of Thai companies The experts viewed that parent companies in Europe should provide consultation to its subsidiaries in Thailand, ensuring that they understand human rights issues and enabling them to meet the requirements on human rights due diligence.

4-29

Chapter 5 Case Studies on Human Rights Due Diligence in Thailand The research team interviewed representatives from large, medium-sized and small companies, and selected a company representing each size for the production of 3 case studies to reflect the human rights due diligence readiness of each company size. The details are presented as follows: Case Study of a Large Company: Thai Union Group Public Company Limited General Information Thai Union Group Public Company Limited ("Thai Union" or the "Company") is listed on the Stock Exchange of Thailand and is one of the 50 companies in the SET 50 8 index of the Stock Exchange of Thailand. Thai Union has been operating the business of manufacturing and export of frozen and canned foods since 1977. The Company expanded the business to cover ready-to-eat food and snack market to form a comprehensive food industry. Thai Union has offices in North America, Europe, Middle East and Asia, ensuring its accessibility to consumers and stakeholders around the world. The company has 14 manufacturing facilities in North America, Europe, Africa and Asia. Currently, Thai Union's workers in Thailand are foreigners, accounted for 66 percent of the total workforce, the majority of which are Burmese. Thai workers accounted for 34 percent of the total workforce.

Thai Union's primary products are processed seafood products for overseas export.

Raw materials are procured from fishery and aquaculture suppliers. Thai Union's products can be divided into 3 categories: processed seafood products; frozen seafood products; and animal feed and other products. In 2021, Thai Union generated THB 58.955 billion from processed seafood products, or 42 percent of total revenue; THB 58.417 billion from frozen seafood products, or 41 percent of total revenue; and THB 23.675 billion from animal feed and other products, or 17 percent of total revenue. The total revenue of the Company for the year 2021 was approximately THB 141 billion.

In 2021, among the products of Thai Union that were exported to each country around the world, the highest sales proportion was from the export to the United States, accounted for 44 percent, followed by the European market with the sales proportion of 28 percent. This is followed by the sales proportion in Thailand at 10 percent, Japan at 5 percent and other 8A stock price index used to show the levels and price movements of 50 ordinary stocks with high market capitalization, high liquidity and

regularly traded, with the proportion of minor shareholders that meets the specified criteria (Stock Exchange of Thailand, 2022).

5-1

countries with total sales proportion of 13 percent.

Based on the 2021 assessment of significant risks for Thai Union, conducted with Thai Union's stakeholders, which can be classified as investors, employees, suppliers, customers, government agencies, civil society organizations, and communities, the Company found that human rights issues remain the significant risks for Thai Union's stakeholders and business operations. The establishment of the human rights due diligence framework, the formulation of human rights policy, and the human rights risk assessment of Thai Union have contributed to its design of a framework to prevent and audit human rights violations with supply chain stakeholders, as well as the remediation guidelines in the event of human rights violations.

Overall human rights policy and practice of the company Thai Union has received numerous awards and honors related to human rights at the national and international levels, such as being a 3-time winner of Model Organization for Human Rights award, by the Right and Liberties Protection Department, and being awarded as No. 1 company in the global food industry by Dow Jones Sustainability Index (DJSI). These achievements certify the progress of the implementation of the Company's sustainability strategy or SeaChange. The Company received the overall social and environmental sustainability score of 100 percentile in 18 categories: 1. Summary of significant issues; 2. Risk and crisis management; 3. Policy persuasion; 4. Supply chain management; 5. Innovation management; 6. Environmental reporting 7. Environmental policy and management system 8.

Eco-economic efficiency 9. Biodiversity 10. Adherence to agricultural sustainability management; 11. Water-related risks; 12. Social reporting; 13. Human rights; 14. Sufficient living wages; 15. Employee relation and retention; 16. Corporate social responsibility and philanthropy; 17. Occupational health and safety; and 18. Health and nutrition. The Company scored 97 percentile in governance and economic category.

Thai Union also issued a statement supporting the new British slavery act (Modern Slavery Act 2015), which deals with ending slavery and trafficking in persons in the supply chain of Thai Union. The Company annually publishes its transparency report in accordance with such law.

Thai Union has been certified under other Thai and international standards, i.e., SEDEX9, an ethical standard for exporting goods to the European Union; Thai Labor Standard (TLS 80019 https://www.sedex.com/

5-2

2553); Green Industry Standard (ISO 14001), BRC10 (British Retail Consortium Global Standards), which is an international food safety standard by the UK Retailers Association, and GMP (Good Manufacturing Practice) standards.

For its human rights policy, Thai Union announced and disclosed its human rights policy in writing. The policy is in line with the recommendations of the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs) and covers stakeholder operations throughout Thai Union's supply chain. Currently, the Company has a Committee for Sustainable Development whose duty is to determine Thai Union's sustainability policies and practices in line with and in response to the goals. The Committee also provides advice and strategic direction, sustainability policies and projects, as well as reviews the implementation progress of key sustainability commitments.

Regarding the regulation of human rights operations of the Company and its suppliers, Thai Union has declared its Business Ethics and Labor Code of Conduct since 2015 to supervise the compliance of the operations of the Company, its affiliates and suppliers with the Company's human rights policy. Currently, Thai Union has declared a total of 12 Business Code of Conduct and Labor Principles, in accordance with Thai laws and international human rights standards. These codes of conduct cover the following issues: non-discrimination; no child and forced labor; fair wages; health and occupational safety; appropriate working hours; and freedom of association. Thai Union applies the principles in the Code of Conduct when working with every operational department of the organization.

In addition, Thai Union has established additional human rights sub-policies to serve as a framework for other aspects of human rights operations, such as anti-discrimination, antiharassment, non-reprisal policy11, and ethical recruitment of migrant workers12.

In the field of human rights operations, Thai Union established a Human Rights Working Group for human rights due diligence conduct. The Company also communicates and educates its employees and supply chain suppliers on human rights on a yearly basis. In terms of supervising the recruitment of workers by its suppliers, Thai Union conducts audits ranging from the recruitment guidelines, which shall comply with the law. The Company also provides 10 https://www.brcgs.com/ 11 https://www.thaiunion.com/files/download/sustainability/policy/20210129-tu-non-reprisal-policy-th.pdf 12 https://www.thaiunion.com/files/download/sustainability/20211223-ethical-migrant-recruitment-policy.pdf

5-3

trainings on ethics to labor recruiters and the workers, who will be required to provide signatory in acknowledgement of the recruiting principles and guidelines which align with Thai Union's Code of Conduct.

Grievance and remediation mechanisms For grievance and remediation mechanisms, Thai Union established a variety of channels for grievance reporting and whistleblowing on violations of labor practices for its employees, workers and stakeholders in its supply chain. There are many channels for receiving grievances, such as, human resources department, grievance box installed in the factory area, website, email, telephone, Issara Institute, Migrant Workers' Rights Network ("MWRN") and other applications. Systematic grievance handling process has been put in place, with clearly defined responsible persons, and time frame for action.

On remediation, Thai Union prepared written and publicly available remediation guidelines. At present, Thai Union established remediation guidelines for cases of clear violation of human rights. However, the course of action will depend on the nature of each type of violation.

To prevent the impact of human rights risks, Thai Union has a surveillance system which includes internal and external risk monitoring and assessment. The outcome of which will be used to continuously develop and improve human rights operations, as well as the human right due diligence of the Company, its affiliates, and suppliers in the supply chain.

Developing a policy and practice for suppliers Thai Union regularly announces and communicates its Business Ethics and Labor Code of Conduct to its suppliers, who are required to provide signatory in acknowledgement of this document prior to the business operation. Thai Union also provide training and communicate with suppliers for their acknowledgement and compliance with the Company’s guidelines on an annual basis. There is a team to provide consultation for correct application, as well as regular and systematic monitoring system.

Human rights due diligence challenges Thai Union has gradually upgraded its human rights efforts. The Company had developed SeaChange, the sustainability strategy which primarily focuses on improving the level of labor care and issuance of traceability measures. The strategy allows the Company to verify that all raw materials are sourced from safe and legitimate sources and processes. As 5-4

a result of these measures, when suppliers were unable to comply with the Company's policy, the Company stopped purchasing raw materials from hundreds of fishing vessels and middleperson business operators. The Company also offered remediation measures where it had recruited more than 1,200 workers from the middle-person operators as the Company’s shrimp peelers after finding that the suppliers failed to comply with the company's labor standards. Thai Union was also one of the first Thai companies to announce its "Ethical Migrant Recruitment Policy" to help workers start working safely and debt-free.

Thai Union has been conducting human rights due diligence since 2016. From then, its human rights due diligence conduct has been constantly developed. At present, the framework for Thai Union’s human rights due diligence consists of 6 pillars: 1) Mission Statement and Foundation Policy on Human Rights; 2) Human Rights Risk Assessment; 3) Human Right Risk Prevention or Mitigation; 4) Human Rights Violation Investigation; 5) Remedies for Affected Persons; and 6) Continuous Monitoring and Information Disclosure. Thai Union conducts human rights due diligence on a yearly basis. Also, in 2021, Thai Union conducted labor inspection on the operating sites of Thai Union's subsidiaries to ensure compliance with policies and laws of the Company.

In addition, Thai Union had improved its human rights due diligence outcome and the evaluation revealed that there are 8 risk issues involved in the operational processes and supply chains of Thai Union, as follows: 1) forced labor or modern slavery, 2) overly high recruitment debt or fees; 3) lack of freedom of association or voices of workers are unheard; 4) child labor; 5) extensive overtime; 6) unsafe and unhealthy working conditions; 7) health and community safety in severe factory accidents; and 8) consumer health and safety. The Company assesses that for its operations in Thailand, the 8 risk issues remain at a high priority level and cannot be downgraded. Also, the Company needs to improve and develop its human rights procedures to be in line with the changes in the human rights risk issues of Thai Union.

Thai Union indicated that the company faces challenges in conducting human rights due diligence in the following 4 main areas: 1) Enhancing knowledge and understanding of human rights issues for the stakeholders in the supply chain of Thai Union - With the large number of stakeholders throughout the Company's supply chain, it is necessary to enhance 5-5

knowledge and understanding of human rights issues to cover all stakeholders in the supply chain.

2) Regulation of human rights actions – With the large number of stakeholders throughout the supply chain of Thai Union, all of which have different levels of knowledge and understanding of human rights, therefore, Thai Union needs to comprehensively regulate the human rights actions of its suppliers across the supply chain.

3) Complex legislations of each country - In human rights operations, for example, during the Covid-19 pandemic, several laws have been enacted with the aim to manage and regulate migrant workers in the country according to the type of migrant workers. Also, the countries of origin have enacted new laws and criteria for MOU-based employment after the Covid-19 pandemic. Therefore, thorough understanding of such changes and communication to suppliers in the supply chain and employees are essential to ensure their compliance.

4) Understanding and cooperation among all sectors, i.e., private, civil society and the public sectors.

Thai Union is currently examining the gaps in its human rights operations. The Company has consulted and worked with various partners in the business sector and non-governmental organizations, academics and the government to increase the efficiency of the human rights efforts of Thai Union.

Human rights due diligence recommendations Human rights actions have contributed to higher sustainability of the business operations of Thai Union. However, to drive the overall business sector, knowledge and understanding are required, as well as cooperation and support from all stakeholders of all sectors: investors, employees, suppliers, customers, civil society organizations, communities and government agencies, in order to affect a positive and truly sustainable change.

Summary of main points from the case study of large company The research team extracted the following interesting points from the case study of large company: • Thai Union has announced and disclosed its human rights policy in line with the recommendations of the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human 5-6

Rights (UNGPs).

• Thai Union, its affiliates and suppliers operate under the Business Ethics and Labor Code of Conduct, which covers the issues of non-discrimination; prohibition of child and forced labor; fair wages; occupational health and safety; appropriate working hours; and freedom of association.

• Thai Union established a Human Rights Working Group to annually conduct human rights due diligence and to communicate and educate human rights knowledge to employees and suppliers within the supply chain.

• Thai Union has systematic grievance handling mechanism, with clearly defined responsible person and timeframe. Thai Union has established the following multiple grievance channels for all stakeholders: human resources department, grievance box installed in the factory facilities; website; email, telephone, Issara Institute, Migrant Workers Rights Network ("MWRN") and other applications.

5-7

Case Study of a Medium-Sized Company: (Undisclosed) Real Estate Developer General Information The research team selected a real estate development company as a representative of medium-sized companies. The selected company operates its real estate development business mainly in Bangkok metropolitan area. The vision of the company is focused on living quality that serves the needs of its customers. The Company is also determined to be an ethical organization, environmentally friendly and community-conscious, as well as to improve the capacity of its personnel at all levels. The Company has established foundation(s) focusing on developing a livable society through promotion and development of education for children from poor families, or conservation and development of the environment, and etc., relying on cooperation of employees, residents, and business partners of the Company.

The Company strongly prioritizes the principles of good governance as the pathway of its business operation. The Company has received the "Best Corporate Governance Award" from the Department of Business Development, Ministry of Commerce and the "Human Rights Model Organization Award" from the Rights and Liberties Protection Department, Ministry of Justice.

Human rights policy and practice of the company The Company focuses on human rights issues as the Company intends to be listed on the Stock Exchange of Thailand. By this reason, the Company has studied the issues that it needs to improve and develop in preparation for listing. The Company found that one important element to achieve the goal is for the Company to produce a code of conduct, which includes the human rights policy announcement. The Company studies the policy of large real estate companies listed in the Stock Exchange as a guideline for human rights policymaking. However, the human rights policy of the Company remains an internal policy and the production of which relied on references to national laws and social norms practiced in Thai society without strong reference to international human rights principles.

The Company has established a sustainability working group, but no specific human rights responsible person has been assigned. However, the Company plans to upgrade its human rights policy to cover suppliers, as well as in the process of preparing an environmental, social and governance (ESG) action plan. The Company will apply human rights principles and ESG as criteria for the selection of future suppliers. In the past, supplier selection was based on general selection criteria, such as, company registration, completeness of documents and business experience, etc.

5-8

The Company only communicates and disseminates its business code of conduct on its website (as general communication). It has not specifically made any communication with stakeholders of specific groups.

On the issue of receiving grievances, the Company has a call center available to take the grievances from the customers and third parties. In addition, there are other channels, i.e., LINE official and website, where most common grievances are from residents in the project.

For example, grievances about driveway parking or pet problems that the residents would like the project to manage or mediate, etc. For grievance channels for employees, the Company has created a QR code that employees can scan to access the complaint form (Google Form).

Human Resources Department will be directly responsible for the grievance handling process.

Until now, the Company has never received any human rights grievance. In case of fraud complaint, the Company will have an internal audit committee responsible for conducting investigations and fact finding on a case-by-case basis.

Human rights due diligence challenges The Company has not conducted a human rights due diligence because the Company still does not understand what a human rights due diligence is, the steps involved or the issues to examine. Therefore, it is most important that business sector is educated about human rights due diligence before they can enhance its operation to the next level.

Human rights due diligence recommendations The Company recommends that trainings on human rights should be provided and the delivery of such training and dissemination of the knowledge should be easily accessible though multiple channels.

Summary of main points from the case study of medium-sized company The research team extracted the following interesting points from the case study of mediumsized company: • The Company is developing a human rights policy for the Company’s listing on the Stock Exchange. The Company referred to the human rights policy of large real estate companies listed on the Stock Exchange.

• The Company will apply human rights principles and ESG as criteria for future supplier selection.

• The Company uses a call center, LINE Official and website as channels to receive grievances from customers and third parties. In addition, the Company has never received a complaint on human rights issues.

5-9

• The Company still does not understand what a human rights due diligence is, and has never conducted a human rights due diligence.

5-10

Case Study of a Small Company: Chokudomrat118 Limited Partnership General Information Chokudomrat 118 Limited Partnership ("Partnership" or "Chokudomrat Crab Raft") is a small partnership (in 2021, the Partnership had the total revenue of THB 10.7 million and total assets of THB 2.3 million). The Partnership operates a crab raft business in Pattani province and operates a one-stop service seafood trading business from upstream to downstream. In other words, Chokudomrat Crab Raft owns a seaport, fishing vessels and production factory. It also provides seafood transportation and distribution services nationwide. About 80 percent of Chokudomrat's workforce are Burmese.

Chokudomrat Crab Raft is a supplier of Viya Crab Products Co., Ltd., which is a business trader operating the business of manufacturing and exporting frozen and canned horse crab meat. The main export market is the United States. Therefore, as an entity within the supply chain of Viya Crab Products Co., Ltd., Chokudomrat Crab Raft has to prepare a Marine Catch Purchasing Document (MCPD)13, which is a document for traceability system, to be used as a reference in issuing a Certificate of Catch for Export according to the Royal Ordinance on Fisheries B.E.2558 (2015).

MCPD is deemed as a verification of each step of operation of Chokudomrat Crab Raft, i.e., verification of product weight delivered to the factory; legitimate vessel registration and fishing license, as well as the inspection of the number of workers on the vessel, both outbound and inbound, etc., and every step shall be traceable.

Overall human rights policy and practice of the company Chokudomrat Crab Raft has not yet announced a written human rights policy. However, the Partnership recognized the necessity of respecting fundamental rights, especially labor rights, such as non-discrimination between Thai and migrant workers. The Partnership has been taking good care of its workers all along, as reflected by the fact that most workers work with Chokudomrat Crab Raft for a long time and some also invited their friends to join the Partnership.

On the issue of handling labor grievances, the Crab Raft has a supervisor on board to supervise the work of the workers. If the worker has any work-related problems, they can inform the supervisor about the issue and the supervisor will initially solve the problem. But 13 http://www.fishmarket.co.th/intranet/images/upload/km/km2_trace.pdf

5-11

if the problem cannot be solved, the supervisor will coordinate with the raft for further resolution.

Most of the work problems are related to occupational injuries, such as sea urchins stings on the hand, slipping, and spraining, and etc. Every injured worker is entitled to receive treatment and every one of them also has fundamental social security rights. In addition, the partnership will take workers who have been injured at work to private clinics or hospitals for treatment and cover all treatment costs.

In terms of handling grievances from the communities or external stakeholders, the Partnership does not have a well-defined handling mechanism for grievances from the communities or stakeholders who may be adversely affected by the operation. However, if the community has an issue that they want to complain about, they can file a grievance with the Subdistrict Administration Organization (SAO). In the past, no grievances have been received from the community, however, if one arises, the Partnership will consider the resolution and remediation on a case-by-case basis.

Human rights due diligence challenges Although Chokudomrat Crab Raft does not yet have a human rights due diligence process, the Partnership viewed that it has been audited and assessed on the issue of labor welfare by external agencies, such as the Department of Labor Protection and Welfare, on an annual basis. From such process, no human rights violation has been found from the inspection of the labor inspector. The issues that the Partnership is concerned about are mainly related to the communication of workers interviewed by the labor inspectors, as they are often erroneous or unclear and often causes aberration.

The Partnership considers that the business operation of Chokudomrat Crab Raft is unlikely to cause human rights violation against external stakeholders. This is because the large part of the business operation of the raft is internally operated, i.e., loading the products on to the raft, is conducted within its own premise. Therefore, conflicts or disputes between the Partnership and the communities are unlikely.

However, the issue of overlapping fishing with other fishing vessels is common, but each partnership will first communicate with one another to avoid conflict. If any damage occurs, such as the fishing vessel of another partnership uses trawlers and causes damage to the traps laid out by the Raft, the supervisor will then communicate with the fishing vessel and together discuss to compensate for the damages incurred.

In terms of formulating human rights policies and practices to be complied with or 5-12

implemented by the suppliers, the Partnership focuses on requiring suppliers to legitimately hire workers, i.e., there shall be no forced labor; payment of wages shall be at least at the legally specified rate; and skilled workers shall be eligible for higher wages. However, the said terms have not been prepared in writing, but only verbally agreed and the Partnership will visit its suppliers periodically. Since most suppliers export their products to foreign countries, thus, it reassures that they take good care of their workers to a certain extent.

Human rights due diligence recommendations For the human rights due diligence, the Partnership deems it necessary that the business operators, particularly small entities, are promoted, through consultation and knowledge, by relevant agencies or experts. Promotion in this area should be in line with the policies or practices already existing in the business operation of the entrepreneurs. Also, communication should be made so that entrepreneurs can understand and recognize the benefits of conducting human rights due diligence.

In addition, government agencies should better understand the context of the business operators. Thorough examination shall be made before announcing any policies or taking any actions that may affect the business operations of the operators. For example, if a Thai fishing vessel is accused of employing illegal migrant workers or is involved in trafficking in persons, government agencies should conduct detailed investigation whether such problem occurs in the industry as a whole or only to a specific operator. This is to ensure that the announcement of such policies or solutions are related to truly significant issue.

Summary of main points from the case study of small company The research team extracted the following interesting points from the case study of small company: • The Partnership has not yet announced a written human rights policy. However, the Partnership focuses on respecting the fundamental rights, especially labor rights. This includes requiring suppliers to legally employ workers, prohibiting forced labor, requiring the payment of wages to be in accordance with the law, ensuring rights to health care and skilled workers shall be eligible for higher wages.

• Currently, the Partnership does not have a handling process for grievances from the communities or stakeholders who may potentially be negatively affected by business operations.

• The Partnership views that government agencies should promote and advise small 5-13

entrepreneurs on human rights issues, as well as communicate to entrepreneurs to understand and recognize the benefits of human rights due diligence.

5-14

Chapter 6 Policy Recommendations The research team analyzed and synthesized the findings from the literature review on surveys of human rights due diligence readiness of companies in Thailand, in-depth interviews with stakeholders and formulation of case studies for the development of policy recommendations. The recommendations are to be proposed to the Rights and Liberties Protection Department for the enhancement of the human rights due diligence readiness of companies in Thailand, as shown in Table 6-1.

6-1

Table 6 - 1 Summary of policy recommendations for Rights and Liberties Protection Department, for the enhancement of human rights due diligence readiness of companies in Thailand Guideline on enhancement of human rights operation Enactment of (new) human rights due diligence legislation Building capacity of companies on business and human rights

Large companies Should comply with the new legislation Scaling up from the human rights readiness/risk assessment guideline Training curriculum and relevant guidelines for large companies shall include the content under the following issues: - Principles and process of meaningful engagement - Principles and process of free, prior, and informed consent: (FPIC) - Effective grievance handling mechanism and transparent remediation mechanism - Heightened human rights due diligence in high risk area

Small and medium-sized companies in the supply chain of large companies or Other small and medium-sized companies subjected to human rights requirements of buyers Do not have to comply with the new legislation Do not have to comply with the new legislation Scaling up from the human rights readiness/risk assessment guideline Development and publication of guidelines and policy documents that cover industrial-level risks, including guideline and policy documents covering the following issues with existing gaps between international standards and the actual practice in Thailand: - Policy on the protection of human rights defenders and non-retaliation - Policy on the protection of people exercising rights to public assembly - Policy on the consultation with ethnic groups/local communities 6-2

Developing guideline/practices in complying with relevant human rights legislation Development and publication of guidelines and policy documents that cover industrial-level risks, including guidelines and policy documents covering the following issues with existing gaps between international standards and the actual practice in Thailand: - Policy on the protection of human rights defenders and non-retaliation - Policy on the protection of people exercising rights to public assembly - Policy on the consultation with ethnic groups/local communities

Guideline on enhancement of human rights operation

Large companies

Small and medium-sized companies in the supply chain of large companies or subjected to human rights requirements of buyers

Other small and medium-sized companies

Development and publication of guidelines and policy documents that cover industrial-level risks, including guideline and policy documents covering the following issues with existing gaps between international standards and the actual practice in Thailand: - Policy on the protection of human rights defenders and non-retaliation - Policy on the protection of people exercising rights to public assembly - Policy on the consultation with ethnic groups/local communities Upgrading to “mentorship” for human rights Strengthening the body of knowledge on Strengthening the body of knowledge on operations (for small and medium-sized business and human rights business and human rights (focusing on easily companies within its supply chain) comprehensible communication, linkages to common issues, i.e., labor rights, consumer rights) Integrating practices into a single Increase the level of cooperation with SEC to Increase the level of cooperation with Increase the level of cooperation with standard and increase inter-agency strengthen the knowledge on human rights for government agencies, local administrative government agencies, local administrative cooperation listed companies organizations to expedite knowledge building organizations to expedite knowledge building 6-3

Guideline on enhancement of human rights operation

Small and medium-sized companies in the supply chain of large companies or Large companies subjected to human rights requirements of buyers on human rights to cover companies of all sizes, industries and every province Establish relevant database, integrate the Establish relevant database, integrate the database for mutual usage and disclose database for mutual usage and disclose database on investigated grievances as a public database on investigated grievances as a public information information

6-4

Other small and medium-sized companies on human rights to cover companies of all sizes, industries and every province.

Establish relevant database, integrate the database for mutual usage and disclose database on investigated grievances as a public information

Details of the aforementioned policy recommendations can be summarized as follows: 6.1 Enactment of (new) human rights due diligence legislation The research team viewed that the enactment of a human rights due diligence law for largescale enterprises should be an inevitable task that the government has to undertake sooner or later, following the global trend on the promulgation of human rights legislation and human rights requirements set out by foreign companies procuring goods and services from Thai companies. More Thai companies, especially large ones, are more likely to be subject to foreign laws or customer requirements. Therefore, such legislation is an important mechanism to significantly enhance the human rights operations of companies in Thailand. Having the legislation can also establish a level playing field for large companies having to comply with international human rights laws or regulations and competitors in the same industry which are not required to comply with such laws or requirements.

However, the level of readiness and necessity to comply with such legislations can be different between companies of different sizes or business relationships. Therefore, the research team has made recommendations on the application of the law based on the 3 types of companies, as follows: 6.1.1 Large companies Thailand should enact laws that require large companies to conduct human rights due diligence and disclose the progress on an annual basis, in accordance with the UNGPs. According to the research, it was found that most large companies, especially those with suppliers located in countries with laws on human rights due diligence or laws on disclosure of human rights information, are familiar with the human rights due diligence process and have been continuously undertaking human rights operations to a certain extent. For large companies that have not yet put in place such process, they have sufficient resources, in terms of budgets and personnel, that can enable them to conduct human rights due diligence.

Furthermore, at present all companies listed on the Stock Exchange of Thailand have to disclose human rights information in the Annual Registration Statement (56-1 One Report) as per the requirements of the Office of Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Disclosure of information in accordance with such requirements reflects the awareness of listed 6-5

companies and their motivation to conduct human rights risk assessments at some level.

The research team viewed that such human rights due diligence laws should be based on clearly defined criteria for the screening of companies legally required to conduct human rights due diligence. The criteria may rely on the number of employees or annual revenue of the company, for example, the revenue shall be more than THB 1 billion per year (doubling the threshold of "medium-sized enterprises" according to the Ministerial Regulations on the Designation of the Characteristics of Small and Medium Enterprises B.E. 2562 (2019)).

In addition, the law should provide incentives for compliance by subjected large companies.

It shall also set out measures for large companies to build the capacity of small and mediumsized companies within their supply chains. This is to ensure that human rights responsibilities can be “passed on” throughout the supply chain, following the UNGPs. The responsibilities include "mentorship" for the provision of advice and suggestions on human rights due diligence to small and medium-sized companies and companies of all sizes in their supply chains (details are discussed in recommendation 2).

6.1.2 Small and medium-sized companies within the supply chain of large companies or subjected to human rights requirements of buyers Companies in this group are already familiar with human rights operations to some level as they are required to undertake and report on human rights operation in accordance with sustainability requirements or standards demanded by the buyers. They may also be subjected to audit by the buyers or external auditor as part of the human rights due diligence process of the buyers. In addition, in-depth interviews have shown that some medium-sized companies aim to become listed on the Stock Exchange of Thailand (SET), so they are prepared to develop sustainability policies which include human rights issues, for the disclosure in accordance with the requirements of the SEC. The research team viewed that the improvement of human rights operations for companies in this category should not focus on the enforcement mechanism of the human rights due diligence legislation like the large companies. This is due to the fact that they have fewer resources and personnel. However, these companies are familiar with human rights operations to a certain extent, as they are required to comply with requirements of buyers. Therefore, these companies can provide significant input on capacity building measures for effective 6-6

human rights operations for small and medium-sized companies (see details in recommendation 2).

6.1.3 Other small and medium-sized companies The research results showed that companies in this category put their business operations as the first priority. Overall, they still lack the knowledge and understanding of human rights issues, and unable to link human rights issues with business operations. The research team sees that, initially, the enhancement of human rights operations for companies in this group should emphasize on building knowledge and understanding for the companies to recognize the benefits to be gained from carrying out human rights operations (details are discussed in recommendation 2). Once the companies have the knowledge and understanding, human rights due diligence can be further promoted.

6.2

Building capacity of companies on business and human rights Based on the results of the human rights due diligence readiness survey in the preparation of this report, it was found that most companies have not conducted human rights risk and/or impact assessments. Therefore, the research team suggested that knowledge should be strengthened, and human rights operations of companies should be enhanced (details discussed in the next section) along with the drafting of laws for large companies as mentioned in recommendation 1 above.

From the in-depth interviews, it was found that many stakeholders proposed that human rights risk assessment guideline should be developed, so that the companies can rely on the practices for their self-assessment. It was found that the development of such guideline has already been initiated by government agencies and international organization. The guidelines include Human Rights Due Diligence Handbook and Checklist for the business sector by the Office of the National Human Rights Commission; the CEO Guide to Human Rights by World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD); and the Training Manual on Human Rights Due Diligence by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), and, etc.

However, in order to ensure more extensive use of the guidelines, relevant agencies should increase proactive public relations to ensure that the companies have comprehensive access to the guideline. Communications shall be carried out in order to build the 6-7

understanding on how human rights operations under the guideline are in line with the sustainability practices or standards that the companies are implementing.

In addition, the research team considered that guidelines and policy documents covering industrial-level risk should be prepared and published, as well as guidelines and policy documents of the business sector covering the following issues which human rights experts see that there are still many gaps between international standards and practices in Thailand: Policy on the protection of human rights defenders and non-retaliation Policy on the protection of people exercising right to public assembly Policy on the consultation with ethnic groups/local communities Apart from the general recommendation on the above guidelines and policy documents, the research team’s recommendations on other issues related to the capacity building of the companies regarding business and human rights can be categorized based on the types of the companies, as follows: 6.2.1 Large companies For large companies that have already conducted human rights due diligence or those with a large number of suppliers within its supply chain, the research team viewed that there should be continuous training courses to develop and upgrade these companies as "mentors" who can provide advice on human rights due diligence to small and medium-sized companies and companies of all sizes in their supply chains. The Ministry of Justice should consider such "mentoring" statistics as part of the awarding criteria for the Human Rights Model Organization award which can further incentivize companies with the required readiness.

The research team agreed with the opinion of human rights experts that there should be a process to train and build further knowledge and understanding for large companies on the topic of stakeholder engagement and effective grievance handling mechanisms. The experts viewed that such mechanisms are not sufficiently efficient, especially in the case of megaprojects that affect many communities or stakeholders.

Relevant training courses and guidelines for large companies should include the following areas: Principles and process for meaningful engagement 6-8

Principles and process for free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC) Effective grievance handling mechanism and transparent remediation mechanism Heightened human rights due diligence in high-risk areas This points out the benefits that the companies will receive if these mechanisms are implemented, and the risks or impacts that the companies have to handle in the absence of such mechanisms. Examples of best practices should be included and well-defined practices should be developed to help build better understanding among large entrepreneurs.

Additional information can be found from the following documents: Doing business with respect for human rights: A guidance tool for companies (2016) by Shift, Oxfam and Global Compact Network Netherland Cross-cutting: Stakeholder engagement (2020) by The Danish Institute for Human Rights Guidelines on indigenous peoples’ issues (2009) by United Nations Development Group -

Free Prior and Informed Consent: An indigenous peoples’ right and a good practice for local communities (2016) by Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Heightened Human Rights Due Diligence for Business in Conflict-Affected Contexts: A Guide (2022) by United Nations Development Programme Human Rights Due Diligence in High Risk Circumstances: Practical Strategies for Businesses (2015) by Shift 6.2.2 Small and medium-sized companies in the supply chain of large companies or subjected to human rights requirements of buyers As mentioned in recommendation 1 above, these companies are familiar with human rights operations to a certain extent, as they are subject to reporting or disclosure of related information. Therefore, the strengthening of the capacity of this group of companies should focus on communication, knowledge development, or provision of human rights courses that are linked to sustainability practices or standards that the companies are implementing. In addition, proactive public relations should be increased to give companies access to the Human Rights Readiness/Risk Assessment Guideline (similar to large companies). Additionally, 6-9

guidelines covering multiple industries should also be developed.

In the next phase, if large companies can be prepared to take the role of "mentors" in human rights operations as provided in recommendation 2.1, mentorship should be leveraged to scale up the human rights due diligence conducts to further cover companies in this group.

6.2.3 Other small and medium-sized companies This group of companies prioritizes profitability or business survival and will consider other issues as a lower priority. In addition, small companies may not be able to fully comply with laws such as labor laws. Therefore, to build the capacity of these companies, communication, knowledge development, or curriculum on legal compliance and human rights issues should be developed. The communication format should be in a language that is easily comprehensible or covers an issue that is common, such as labor rights, consumer rights. Also, guidelines or practices for the implementation of laws related to human rights issues should be developed, so that the companies are ready to progress towards human rights operations at the level beyond minimum legal requirement.

6.3 Integrating practices into a single standard and increase inter-agency cooperation One of the major obstacles that many stakeholders agree on is the absence of interagency integration among government agencies on human rights operations. This can be seen from having different and varied practices, causing confusion among entrepreneurs and the uncertainty on how to proceed. Different or overlapping practices can result in exorbitant cost for the business sector concerning their human rights operations, when in fact human rights issues should be based on international principles. Such higher cost may deprive them of competitiveness and/or undermine their profitability.

The research team viewed that these issues require inter-agency collaboration among government agencies, based on the following guidelines: 6.3.1 Building cooperation with other agencies to scale up the capacity building of the companies on business and human rights Currently, the Rights and Liberties Protection Department is steering human rights work in collaboration with other government agencies, including local administrative organizations, through the operation of the Human Rights Steering Committee of Thailand (2023). Such efforts include: the appointment of a sub-committee responsible for the preparation of business and 6-10

human rights standards and emblems. The sub-committee is chaired by the Director-General of the Rights and Liberties Protection Department, with the authority and duty to consider and develop criteria, process, and assessment method to certify business and human rights standards and the emblem to encourage the business sector to conduct business with human rights responsibility and awareness; appointment of the provincial and Bangkok-level human rights steering sub-committees, with the authority and duty to prepare human rights policy proposals at the provincial level, provincial human rights action plan, provincial knowledge promotion for local citizens and practical implementation, etc.

However, the research team viewed that the aforementioned efforts on human rights is a steering action at the policy level and may not sufficiently enhance human rights operations, particularly, the development of business and human rights standards and emblem. The research team viewed that, currently, there are sufficient standards on human rights protection in the business sector, such as: The UNGPs OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises Standards on Environmental and Social Sustainability of the International Finance Corporation (IFC) Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) of Coalition for Environmentally Responsible Economies (CERES) and Tellus Institute with the support from United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) Corporate Social Responsibility, Department of Industrial Works (CSR-DIW) of the Department of Industrial Works, Ministry of Industry These are voluntary standards that require businesses to report or disclose information on their relevant human rights operations. In the past, Thai companies, especially large companies, have already been interested in adopting these standards. Therefore, the barriers of human rights protection of the business sector are not a lack of awareness of these standards, but a lack of practical understanding of efficient human rights protection (National Human Rights Commission, 2016).

To further enhance human rights operations, the research team viewed that the Rights and Liberties Protection Department should increase its operational-level cooperation with relevant agencies. It may consider expanding cooperation with the Office of Securities and 6-11

Exchange Commission (SEC) to build human rights knowledge for SEC listed companies by increasing training in the following target groups and topics: Large listed companies: the role of "mentor" for human rights operations of companies in their own supply chains (recommendation 2.1 above).

Small and medium-sized listed companies: Business benefits from human rights operation (e.g. risk management) and sustainability standards that affect the company.

In addition, the Rights and Liberties Protection Department should increase the level of cooperation with other agencies with direct connection to entrepreneurs, such as the Department of Labor Protection and Welfare, Department of Business Development, Provincial Commercial Office, as well as local administrative organizations to expedite and scale up human rights knowledge building to cover companies of all sizes, industries and provinces.

Stakeholders agreed that the Department of Labor Protection and Welfare should be the main agency to work with relevant agencies as it is the agency with the highest amount of labor and entrepreneurial information. However, on this issue, the research team suggested that the Rights and Liberties Protection Department should establish a working group with the above agencies to conduct a feasibility study on ways to enhance cooperation on the implementation of business and human rights.

6-12

6.3.2 Development and disclosure of business and human rights database for mutual interest Rights and Liberties Protection Department should expand its cooperation with the Office of the National Human Rights Commission as it is the agency with the highest amount of information on human rights grievances. This can enable the connection and disclosure of human rights database for the establishment of a single mutual database, i.e., NHRC database on investigated human rights violation grievances in the business sector, which shall be publicly disclosed as an open data to incentivize the business sector to enhance human rights operations. This also provides opportunities for academics, companies, and government agencies to analyze the data to assess potential human rights risk arising from business activities which will be useful in improving the organization's human rights operations.

In addition, since the NHRC and many international agencies have already prepared guidelines on human rights risk due diligence and checklist for the business sector, the research team recommended that the Rights and Liberties Protection Department and the NHRC should find a way to expand the application of such guidelines. This can be done through the establishment of online system for companies to assess the level of human rights due diligence readiness according to the checklist provided in the guideline, and etc.

6-13

Bibliography BBC. (19 ธันวาคม 2563). อุยกูร์ : ฝ้าย “ที่แปดเปื้อน” ของซินเจียง หลักฐานใหม่ชี้มีการบังคับใช้แรงงานใน ใจกลางอุตสาหกรรมแฟชั่นโลก. เข้าถึงได้จาก https://www.bbc.com/thai/international55329600 BBC. (25 พฤษภาคม 2565). อุยกูร์ : แฟ้มลับตำรวจซินเจียงเผยตัวตนและเรื่องราวชาวอุยกูร์ที่ถูกคุมขังในซิน เจียง. เข้าถึงได้จาก https://www.bbc.com/thai/international-61570553 BRCGS. (n.d.). Contact us MyBRCGS 0items. Retrieved from https://www.brcgs.com/ Business & Human Rights Resource Centre. (2020, October 29). Bill 216, an Act to enact the Modern Slavery Act and to amend the Customs Tariff, introduced into the Canadian Senate. Retrieved from https://www.business-humanrights.org/en/latestnews/bill- 216-an-act-to-enact-the-modern-slavery-act-and-to-amend-the-customstariffintroduced-into-the-canadian-senate/ Business & Human Rights Resource Centre. (2020, November 28). Switzerland: Responsible Business Initiative rejected at ballot box despite gaining 50.7% of popular vote.

Retrieved from https://www.business-humanrights.org/en/latest-news/swiss-duediligence-initiative-set-for-public-referendum-as-parliament-only-opts-for-reportingcentred-proposal/ Business & Human Rights Resource Centre. (2022, February 17). Are US Businesses Falling Behind On Human Rights Due Diligence? Retrieved from https://www.businesshumanrights.org/en/blog/are-us-businesses-falling-behind-on-human-rights-duediligence/ Business & Human Rights Resource Centre. (2022, February 8). More than 100 companies and investors call for effective EU corporate accountability legislation. Retrieved from https://www.business-humanrights.org/en/latest-news/eu-mandatory-duediligence-2022/ European Commission. (2022). Corporate sustainability due diligence: Fostering sustainability in corporate governance and management systems. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/info/business-economy-euro/doing-business-eu/corporatesustainability-due-diligence_en#what-are-the-benefits-of-these-new-rules FAO. (2016). Free Prior and Informed Consent: An indigenous peoples’ right and a good practice for local communities. Retrieved from https://www.fao.org/3/i6190e/i6190e.pdf Bibliography - 1

IFLR. (2022, March 30). Complying with ESG reporting and due diligence requirements in Switzerland. Retrieved from https://www.iflr.com/article/2a647zxame68p5ejks9og/complying-with-esg-reportingand-due-diligence-requirements-in-switzerland ILO. (2022, September 29). UN General Assembly recognizes human right to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment. Retrieved from International Labour Organization: https://www.ilo.org/global/about-theilo/newsroom/news/WCMS_857164/lang--en/index.htm International Labour Organization. (n.d.). Responsible Business: Key Messages from International Instruments. Retrieved from https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---asia/---robangkok/documents/publication/wcms_724747.pdf International Organisation of Employers. (2021, September). Key developments in mandatory human rights due diligence and supply chain law; Considerations for employers. Retrieved from https://www.ioeemp.org/index.php?eID=dumpFile&t=f&f=156042&token=ee1bad43bfa8dbf97562457 8 0a572ff4877a86d5 Matthew, M., Daniel, P., Teresa, S., Emily, K., & Thomas, T. (2019, April). Human Rights Disclosure in ASEAN. Retrieved from https://static1.squarespace.com/static/602c19fa95b65244e2fd70f5/t/613911a4b35f70 654a08414d/1631130031031/Human+Rights+Disclosure+in+ASEAN++Full+Report+%281%29.pdf OECD. (2018, May 30). Countries commit to step up efforts to drive more responsible business conduct through new OECD instrument. Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/investment/mne/countries-commit-to-step-up-efforts-to-drivemore-responsible-business-conduct-through-new-oecd-instrument.htm OECD Watch. (2018, June 20). Launch of the OECD Due Diligence Guidance on Responsible Business Conduct. Retrieved from https://mneguidelines.oecd.org/OECDWatch-DueDiligence-Guidance-Contribution-2018.pdf Pinsent Masons. (2022, February 4). Swiss usher in corporate reporting and due diligence mandates. Retrieved from https://www.pinsentmasons.com/out-law/news/swissusher-in-corporate-reporting-and-due-diligence-mandates Bibliography - 2

SEDEX. (n.d.a). About us. Retrieved from https://www.sedex.com/about/ SEDEX. (n.d.b). Self Assessment Questionnaire. Retrieved from https://www.sedex.com/wpcontent/uploads/2020/02/Self-Assessment-Questionnaire-SAQ-Briefing-Note-ENG.pdf SEDEX. (n.d.c). SMETA, the world’s leading audit. Retrieved from https://www.sedex.com/solutions/smeta-audit/ Shift . (2015). Human Rights Due Diligence in High Risk Circumstances: Practical Strategies for Businesses. Retrieved from http://shiftproject.org/wpcontent/uploads/2015/03/Shift_HRDDinhighriskcircumstances_Mar2015.pdf Shift. (2016). Doing business with respect for human rights: A guidance tool for companies.

Retrieved from https://www.businessrespecthumanrights.org/image/2016/10/24/business_respect_hu man_rights_full.pdf Shift. (n.d.). UN Guiding Principles 101. Retrieved from Shift: https://shiftproject.org/resources/ungps101/ Sustainable Stock Exchange. (2021, June). wp-content. Retrieved from sse initiative: https://sseinitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Policy-brief-Stock-exchangeguidance-on-human-rights-disclosure.pdf Thaiunion. (2022, January 1). Ethical Migrant Recruitment Policy. Retrieved from https://www.thaiunion.com/files/download/sustainability/20211223-ethical-migrantrecruitment-policy.pdf The Danish Institute for Human Rights. (2020). Cross-cutting: Stakeholder engagement.

Retrieved from https://www.humanrights.dk/sites/humanrights.dk/files/media/document/HRIA%20To olbox_Stakeholder%20Engagement_ENG_2020.pdf The Remedy Project. (2021). Mandatory human rights due dilligence legislation guidance for suppliers operating in Asia. Retrieved from https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5f846df102b20606387c6274/t/61b304ca3ce7e 7 3bdbc0459b/1639122123118/21_1756_Mandatory+Human+Rights_1209.pd f UNDG. (2009). Guidelines on indigenous peoples’ issues. Retrieved from https://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/documents/UNDG_guidelines_EN.pdf UNDP. (2021, January 31). Heightened Human Rights Due Diligence for Business in Conflict Bibliography - 3

Affected Contexts. Retrieved from https://www.undp.org/sites/g/files/zskgke326/files/202206/UNDP_Heightened_Human_Rights_Due_Diligence_for_Business_in_ConflictAffected_Context.pdf UN Working Group on Business and Human Rights. (2021, June). Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights at 10: Taking stock of the first decade. Retrieved from https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Issues/Business/UNGPs10/Stock t aking-reader-friendly.pdf World Benchmarking Alliance. (2020). Corporate Human Rights Benchmark: 2020 Key Findings. Retrieved from https://assets.worldbenchmarkingalliance.org/app/uploads/2020/11/WBA-2020-CHRBKey-Findings-Report.pdf World Benchmarking Alliance. (2022). Social Transformation Baseline Assessment 2022.

Retrieved from https://assets.worldbenchmarkingalliance.org/app/uploads/2022/01/2022_Social_Tran sformation_Baseline_Assessment.pdf World Federation of Exchanges. (2022, April 14). world-exchanges. Retrieved from our work: https://www.worldexchanges.org/storage/app/media/WFE_Human%20Rights%20Briefing.pdf กรมคุ้มครองสิทธิและเสรีภาพ กระทรวงยุติธรรม. (2562). แผนปฏิบัติการระดับชาติว่าด้วยธุรกิจกับสิทธิ มนุษยชน ระยะที่ 1 (พ.ศ. 2562-2565). เข้าถึงได้จาก https://globalnaps.org/wpcontent/uploads/2017/11/nap-thailand-th.pdf กระทรวงยุติธรรม. (2566, กุมภาพันธ์ 9). ฉบับที่ 377/2566 คุ้มครองสิทธิฯ เข้าพบ อนุกรรมการและ เลขานุการร่วมกรุงเทพมหานคร ประสานความร่วมมือขับเคลื่อนงานสิทธิมนุษยชน ขานรับแผนสิทธิ มนุษยชนแห่​่งชาติ ฉบับที่ 5 (พ.ศ. 2566-2570). เข้าถึงได้จาก ข่าวกรมคุ้มครองสิทธิและเสรีภาพ: https://www.moj.go.th/view/80808 คณะกรรมการขับเคลื่อนงานสิทธิมนุษยชนของประเทศไทย. (2566). แต่งตั้งคณะอนุกรรมการขับเคลื่อนงาน สิทธิมนุษยชนระดับจังหวัด และกรุงเทพมหานคร. เข้าถึงได้จาก https://ww2- api.rlpd.go.th/File/Documentcontent/6fe5a47b-3cd4-41f6a677- 08daf512cf0b/20230113100732.pdf

Bibliography - 4

คณะกรรมการขับเคลื่อนงานสิทธิมนุษยชนของประเทศไทย. (2566). แต่งตั้งคณะอนุกรรมการจัดทำมาตรฐาน ธุรกิจกับสิทธิมนุษยชน และตราสัญลักษณ์. เข้าถึงได้จาก https://ww2- api.rlpd.go.th/File/Documentcontent/9ce46d5b-85c9-40da-a67608daf512cf0b/20230113100355.pdf คณะกรรมการสิทธิมนุษยชนแห่งชาติ. (2559). มาตรฐานสากลในการดำเนินธุรกิจเพื่อการเคารพสิทธิ มนุษยชน. กรุงเทพฯ: คณะกรรมการสิทธิมนุษยชนแห่งชาติ. คณะกรรมการสิทธิมนุษยชนแห่งชาติ. (2561). คู่มือประเมินความเสี่ยงด้านสิทธิมนุษยชนอย่างรอบด้าน (Human Rights Due Diligence Handbook) และรายการตรวจสอบ (Checklist) ของภาคธุรกิจ. ปทุมธานี: สำนักงานคณะกรรมการสิทธิมนุษยชนแห่งชาติ. ตลาดหลักทรัพย์แห่งประเทศไทย. (1 ธันวาคม 2564). ข้อมูลดัชนีกลุ่มอุตสาหกรรมและหมวดธุรกิจ. เข้าถึงได้ จาก https://www.set.or.th/th/market/index/set/industry-sector-profile ตลาดหลักทรัพย์แห่งประเทศไทย. (2565). ดัชนีราคา SET50 Index. เข้าถึงได้จาก https://www.set.or.th/th/market/index/set50/profile ไทยยูเนี่ยน. (28 กันยายน 2563). นโยบายการไม่ตอบโต้ (Non Reprisal Policy). เข้าถึงได้จาก https://www.thaiunion.com/files/download/sustainability/policy/20210129-tu-nonreprisal-policy-th.pdf ประมวล รักษ์ใจ. (ม.ป.ป.). ระบบตรวจสอบย้อนกลับสัตว์น้ำในการพัฒนาการประมงที่ยั่งยืน. เข้าถึงได้จาก http://www.fishmarket.co.th/intranet/images/upload/km/km2_trace.pdf พระราชบัญญัติเขตพัฒนาพิเศษภาคตะวันออก พ.ศ. 2561. (2561, พฤษภาคม 14). ราชกิจจานุเบกสา. เล่ม 135 ตอนที่ 34 ก. เข้าถึงได้จาก: https://www.eeco.or.th/th/eec-act สำนักข่าวอินโฟเควสท์. (21 กุมภาพันธ์ 2565). ก.ล.ต.: ปี 65 พบ 56-1 One Report พร้อมกันอย่างเป็น ทางการ. เข้าถึงได้จาก https://www.infoquest.co.th/2022/175687 สำนักงานคณะกรรมการกำกับหลักทรัพย์และตลาดหลักทรัพย์. (2564). คู่มือการแสดงข้อมูลด้านการจัดการ ความยั่งยืน. กรุงเทพ: สำนักงานคณะกรรมการกำกับหลักทรัพย์และตลาดหลักทรัพย์ (ก.ล.ต.). สำนักงานส่งเสริมวิสาหกิจขนาดกลางและขนาดย่อม. (29 พฤศจิกายน 2562). นิยาม SME. เข้าถึงได้จาก สำนักงานส่งเสริมวิสาหกิจขนาดกลางและขนาดย่อม (สสว.): https://www.sme.go.th/th/cmsdetail.php?modulekey=332&id=1334 องค์การแรงงานระหว่างประเทศ. (2562). ปฏิญญาไตรภาคีว่าด้วยหลักการเกี่ยวกับบรรษัทข้ามชาติและ นโยบายทางสังคม. เข้าถึงได้จาก https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---asia/---robangkok/documents/publication/wcms_684935.pdf Bibliography - 5

Annexes

Annex -1

Annex 1 Company Human Rights Due Diligence Readiness Survey Project Owner: United Nations Development Programme: UNDP, in collaboration with Rights and Liberties Protection Department, Ministry of Justice Researcher: Sal Forest Company Limited Research Duration: July 2022 – April 2023 Objectives: To evaluate the human rights due diligence readiness of companies in Thailand Instructions: (1) Completing the survey may take up to 20 minutes (2) All of your answers will be kept confidential and used only for research purposes Initial Information: The United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs) are universally recognized and accepted standards for the protection of human rights. Human Rights Due Diligence (HRDD) has been identified in the UNGPs as a framework for businesses to conduct responsible business by adhering to human rights principles to prevent and mitigate losses. Impact from actual and potential human rights violations has been assessed and closely monitored and communicated to the public to ensure that those affected will receive attentive remedy and treatment. For more information, please visit: Human Rights Due Diligence Handbook Part 1: Information of the respondent Main questions

Details

• Name of respondent • Agency/Organization • Position • Type of business operation

• Name of respondent

 Manufacturing  Trade  Service  Agricultural business  Food and beverage  Fashion  Home and office supplies  Personal items and medical supplies  Banking  Capital and securities  Insurance and life insurance Annex 1-1

Main questions

Details  Automotive  Industrial materials and machines  Packaging  Paper and printing materials  Petrochemical and chemical products  Steel and metal products  Construction materials  Construction contracting  Real estate development  Property fund and real estate investment trust  Power and utilities  Mining  Trade (Retail/Wholesale)  Medicine  Media and publishing  Specialized services: education, business consultancy, waste management service provider, and other specialized services provided to other business sector and not categorized under any business category  Tourism and leisure  Transportation and logistics  Electronic parts  Information technology and communication  Others (please specify in the next question)

• If your answer is others, please specify your industrial sector  Not listed in the Stock Exchange  Listed in the Stock Exchange

• Is your company listed in the Stock Exchange of Thailand (SET)?

 Not an affiliate/subsidiary of a multinational enterprise  Being an affiliate/subsidiary of a multinational enterprise (please specify in the next question)

• Is your company an affiliate of a multinational enterprise?

• Please specify the nationality of your parent company, if your company is an affiliate/subsidiary of a multinational enterprise

Annex 1-2

Main questions

Details

• What human rights risk issues that you think your company has? (List 1-2 important issues) • Company annual revenue

Manufacturing  Less than THB 100 million per year (S)  THB 100-500 million per year (M)  More than THB 500 million per year (L) Manufacturing • Number of workers  Less than 50 (S)  50-200 (M)  More than 200 (L) • Revenue of your company from export constitutes how  Unknown/No data  No revenue from export many percent (%) of the total revenue (approximate)?  1-10%  11-20%  21-30%  31-40%  41-50%  51-60%  61-70%  71-80%  81-90%  91-100%  Unknown/No data • The proportion of female workers of your company constitutes how many percent (%) of the total workforce  No female worker  1-10% (approximate)?  11-20%  21-30%  31-40%  41-50%  51-60%  61-70%  71-80%  81-90% Annex 1-3

Service/wholesale/retail  Less than THB 50 million per year (S)  THB 50-300 million per year (M)  More than THB 300 million per year (L) Service/wholesale/retail  Less than 30 (S)  30-100 (M)  More than 100 (L)

Main questions

Details

 91-100% • The proportion of female management of your company  Unknown/No data  No female management constitutes how many percent (%) of the total  1-10% management (approximate)?  11-20%  21-30%  31-40%  41-50%  51-60%  61-70%  71-80%  81-90%  91-100% • The proportion of the migrant worker of your company  Unknown/No data constitute how many percent (%) of the total workforce  No migrant worker  1-10% (approximate)?  11-20%  21-30%  31-40%  41-50%  51-60%  61-70%  71-80%  81-90%  91-100% • The proportion of temporary workers of your company  Unknown/No data constitutes how many percent (%) of the total workforce  No non-permanent worker  1-10% (approximate)?  11-20%  21-30%  31-40%  41-50%  51-60%  61-70%  71-80%  81-90%  91-100% Annex 1-4

Main questions

Details

 Unknown/No data company constitutes how many percent (%) of the total  No worker with disability  1-10% workforce (approximate)?  11-20%  21-30%  31-40%  41-50%  51-60%  61-70%  71-80%  81-90%  91-100% • The proportion of workers who are members of a labor  Unknown/No data  No worker being a member of labor union union of your company constitutes how many percent  1-10% (%) of the total workforce (approximate)?  11-20%  21-30%  31-40%  41-50%  51-60%  61-70%  71-80%  81-90%  91-100%  Unknown/No data • Does your company have an internal welfare  No internal welfare committee committee?  Has internal welfare committee  Unknown/No data • Is/Was your company a member or a part of human  Never joined as member or part of human rights project rights project?  Being a member of United Nations Global Compact (UNGC)  Being a member of World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD)  Being a member of Global Compact Network Thailand (GCNT) • The proportion of workers with disability of your

Annex 1-5

Main questions

Details  Applied to join Project on Human Rights Model Organization of the Rights and Liberties Protection Department, Ministry of Justice  Others, please specify……..

Part 2: Current status of the company on human rights due diligence Issue Policy 1. Did your company publicly announce any human rights policy and/or commitment to respect human rights standards?  No public announcement of human rights policy [0 point]  Publicly announced human rights policy (please specify in item 1.1) [1 point] 1.1 What are the human rights policies and/or commitments to respect human rights standards that your company has publicly announced? (Can select more than 1 option)  Referred to Universal Declaration of Human Rights or UDHR [1 point]  Referred to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of indigenous Peoples [1 point]  Referred to the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs) [1 point]  Referred to the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises [1 point]  Referred to the labor standards pursuant to the 8 fundamental conventions of the International Labour Organization (ILO) [1 point]  Other human rights standards, please specify….. [1 point if the standard is relevant] 2. The working hours specified by your company are not more than 48 hours or 60 hours per week (including overtime).  No maximum working hours specified [-1 point]  Maximum working hours specified but exceeding 48 hours and/or 60 hours per week (including overtime). [-1 point]  Maximum working hours specified at not more than 48 hours per week or 60 hours per week (including overtime). [1 point]  Others……. [as the case may be] 3. Your company has an overtime policy whereby overtime work requires consent from the worker and worker is entitled to special remuneration.  No condition on worker’s consent [-2 points]  Consent from worker is required but no special remuneration [-1 point]  Consent from worker is required and worker is entitled to special remuneration [1 point]  No policy requiring overtime work [2 points] 4. Your company established a working group or assigned a person responsible for human rights operations.  No establishment of working group or assignment of person responsible for human rights operations [0 point]  Working group was established or a responsible person was assigned for human rights operations. [1 point] Annex 1-6

Issue  Working group was established or a responsible person, in a position above senior manager, was assigned for human rights operations. [2 points] 5. Your company has a policy on regular consultation with ethnic groups/indigenous people/local communities, both prior to and during construction or project implementation.  No policy on consultation with ethnic groups/local communities [-1 point]  Company has a policy on consultation with ethnic groups/local communities but not publicly disclosed. [0 point]  Company has a policy on consultation with ethnic groups/local communities which is publicly disclosed. [1 point] 6. Your company publicly disclosed remediation process on the issue relating to procuring or cooperating in the remediation of a person, worker and communities negatively affected by the operation of the company or in which the company was involved.  No remediation process [-1 point]  Company has the remediation process but not publicly disclosed. [0 point]  Company has the remediation process that is publicly disclosed. [1 point] 7. Your company declared a public commitment that the company does not tolerate harassment, threat, violence, punishment, surveillance or physical or legal attack against human rights defenders, as well as those exercising their freedom of expression, association, assembly and peaceful protest (human rights defenders are activists working to protect and promote human rights).  No public commitment [0 point]  Company has made public commitment. [1 point] 8. Your company has measures or projects to promote or support the work of human rights defenders at the local and/or national level (human rights defenders are activists working to protect and promote human rights). (Can select more than 1 option)  No measure or project to promote or support the work of human rights defenders [0 point]  Company has measures or projects to promote or support the work of human rights defenders at the community level.

[1 point]  Company has measures or projects to promote or support the work of human rights defenders at the national level. [2 points] Human Rights Due Diligence (HRDD) 9. (If human rights policy was declared under item 1.) To which group of stakeholders does your company specifically communicate the human rights policy? (Can select more than 1 option)  Unknown/No data [0 point]  No communication of human rights policy to the public [0 point]  Communication by public announcement only (not specifically to any group of stakeholders) [1 point]  Company management [1 point]  Employees/workers of the company [1 point] Annex 1-7

Issue  Suppliers in the supply chain [1 point]  Employees/workers of suppliers [1 point]  Contractor [1 point]  Customer [1 point]  Potentially affected communities [1 point]  Others…[as the case may be] 10. Since 2019, to which groups of stakeholders has your company directly organized human rights training? (Can select more than 1 option)  Unknown/No data [0 point]  Had never organized human rights training since 2019 [0 point]  Company management [1 point]  Employees/workers of the company [1 point]  Suppliers in the supply chain [1 point]  Employees/workers of suppliers [1 point]  Potentially affected communities [1 point]  Others…[as the case may be] 11. Since early 2019, what is the level of human rights due diligence that your company has conducted?  Never conducted human risk and impact audit since 2019 onwards [0 point]  Once – human rights risk and impact audit at the factory/main business establishment level. [1 point]  Once – human rights risk and impact audit at the company level (excluding supply chain) [2 points]  Once – human rights risk and impact audit at the company and Tier 1 level supplier (top priority supplier) [3 points]  More than once - human rights risk and impact audit at the factory/main business establishment level [4 points]  More than once - human rights risk and impact audit at the company level (excluding supply chain) [5 points]  More than once - human rights risk and impact audit at the company and Tier 1 level supplier (top priority supplier) [6 points] 12. At what level does your company integrate the findings from human rights due diligence?  Findings from human rights risk and impact assessment have been integrated. The findings were used to determine prevention or mitigation measures for risks or impacts identified in the human rights due diligence process, but no targetidentified action plan has been made. [1 point]  Findings from human rights risk and impact assessment have been integrated. The findings were used to determine prevention or mitigation measures for risks or impacts identified in the human rights due diligence process, and targetidentified action plan has been made but such plan and targets have not been publicly disclosed. [2 points]  Findings from human rights risk and impact assessment have been integrated. The findings were used to determine prevention or mitigation measures for risks or impacts identified in the human rights due diligence process, and targetidentified action plan has been made and publicly disclosed. [3 points] 13. How does your company assess the effectiveness and improve human rights operations?

Annex 1-8

Issue  No effectiveness assessment for human rights operations of the company [0 point]  Company assesses the effectiveness of its human rights operations without the participation from NGOs/human rights experts. [1 point]  Company assessed the effectiveness of its human rights operations with the participation from NGOs/human rights experts. [2 points] 14. Does your company disclose its human rights operation to the public?  No reporting of human rights operation to the public [0 point]  Company discloses human rights reports/human rights due diligence report periodically (not yearly). [1 point]  Company discloses human rights reports/human rights due diligence report annually. [2 points] Grievance/remediation mechanisms 15. Does your company have a channel to receive grievance from stakeholders?  No channel to receive grievance [-1 point]  Company has a grievance channel. [1 point] 15.1 Your company has the following channels to receive grievance from stakeholders. (Can select more than 1 option)  Grievance center/Call Center [1 point]  Website [1 point]  Email [1 point]  Internal grievance system, i.e., intranet [1 point]  Letter [1 point]  Others…[as the case may be] 16. The grievance channel specified in item 15.1 is available for which groups of stakeholders? (Can select more than 1 option) (if the company has no grievance channel, please skip this item)  General public [1 point]  Employees/workers of the company [1 point]  Suppliers in the supply chain [1 point]  Employees/workers of suppliers [1 point]  Communities of the suppliers [1 point]  Customers [1 point]  Communities of the supplies [1 point]  Potentially affected communities [1 point] 17. Your company has a grievance channel available in the language accessible by every group of stakeholders. (Can select more than 1 option) (if the company has no grievance channel, please skip this item)  Grievance channel available in Thai [1 point]  Grievance channel available in English [1 point]  Grievance channel available in other languages, please specify…. [1 point/language] Annex 1-9

Issue 18. Does your company have a stakeholder engagement process for the design and efficiency development of grievance mechanism/channel? (if you do not have a grievance channel, please skip this item)  No engagement process with users of grievance mechanism/channel [0 point]  Company has a stakeholder engagement process. (Please specify in item 18.1) [1 point] 18.1 Please specify your stakeholder engagement process for the design and efficiency development of grievance mechanism/channel.

19. Your company provides resources, budget, or consultation support to ensure that all stakeholders can equally access and participate in the grievance process. (Can select more than 1 option)  No additional action (only provides grievance mechanism) [0 point]  Company provides consultation to stakeholders on entering a grievance process. [1 point]  Additional resources are provided (i.e. regular public relations materials) to ensure that stakeholders can access grievance mechanism. [1 point] 20. Which of the grievance handling process is disclosed by your company? (Can select more than 1 option)  No disclosure of any grievance handling process [0 point]  Grievance handling process is disclosed. [1 point]  Grievance withdrawal process is disclosed. [1 point]  Company discloses the policy on reporting progress to the complainant within the specified period, i.e., 3, 7 or 15 days, etc. [1 point] 21. Does your company have a non-retaliation policy for the reporting of grievance or concern against the complainant?  No non-retaliation policy for the reporting of grievance or concern [0 point]  Company has a non-retaliation policy for the reporting of grievance or concern. [1 point] 22. What level is the company’s complainant privacy protection policy?  No complainant privacy protection policy [0 point]  Company has a complainant privacy protection policy but no grievance mechanism through an NGO or other organization representing the complainant. [1 point]  Company has a complainant privacy protection policy and a grievance mechanism through an NGO or other organization representing the complainant. [1 point] 23. Your company has a policy to remedy those whose human rights have been violated in the event that the company caused or contributed to negative human rights impacts.  No remediation policy for those violated [-1 point]  Company has an undisclosed remediation policy for those violated. (Please specify in 23.1) [0 point]  Company has a disclosed remediation policy for those violated. (Please specify in 23.1) [1 point] 23.1 Please provide an example of remediation approach for those whose human rights have been violated in the event that the company caused or contributed to negative human rights impacts.

Answer: …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Annex 1-10

Issue 24. Which information is disclosed by your company regarding grievances? (Can select more than 1 option)  No annual disclosure of information regarding grievances [0 point]  Annual disclosure of grievances handled [1 point]  Annual disclosure of grievances rejected by the company [1 point]  Annual disclosure of reasons for the rejection of grievance by the company [1 point]  Annual disclosure of outcome and monitoring of finalized grievances [1 point] 25. Your company has a lesson-learned process from annual grievances to improve its human rights operation.  No lesson-learned process from annual grievances [0 point]  Company has a lesson-learned process from annual grievances to improve its human rights operation. [1 point] Issues relating suppliers in the supply chain 26. Which human rights principle does your company require suppliers to publicly declare its commitment to? (Can select more than 1 option)  Unknown/No data [0 point]  Not required [0 point]  Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) [1 point]  UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs) [1 point]  OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises [1 point]  Labor standards pursuant to the 8 fundamental conventions of the International Labour Organization (ILO) [1 point]  Others, please specify……. [as the case may be] 27. Your company requires suppliers to set the working hours to not more than 48 hours or 60 hours per week (including overtime).  Unknown/No data [0 point]  Not required [0 point]  Required [1 point] 28. Your company requires suppliers to specify an overtime policy whereby overtime work requires consent from the worker and worker is entitled to special remuneration.  Unknown/No data [0 point]  Not required [0 point]  Required [1 point] 29. Your company requires suppliers to have a policy on regular consultation with ethnic groups/indigenous people/local communities, both prior to and during construction or project implementation.  Unknown/No data [0 point]  Not required [0 point]  Required [1 point] 30. Your company requires suppliers to have at least one channel to receive grievances from every group of stakeholders.  Unknown/No data [0 point] Annex 1-11

Issue  Not required [0 point]  Required [1 point] 31. Your company requires suppliers to publicly disclose handling process for grievances from stakeholders.  Unknown/No data [0 point]  Not required [0 point]  Required [1 point] 32. Your company requires suppliers to have a policy to remedy those whose human rights have been negatively affected in the event that the supplier caused or contributed to such affect.  Unknown/No data [0 point]  Not required [0 point]  Required [1 point] 33. Does your company require suppliers to conduct human rights risk and impact assessment?  Unknown/No data [0 point]  Not required [0 point]  Required [1 point] 34. Your company has a process to monitor or audit supplier’s human rights operation on a yearly basis.  Unknown/No data [0 point]  Company does not have a process to monitor or audit supplier’s human rights operation. [0 point]  Company has a monitoring and auditing plan for its suppliers which is implemented every year. [1 point] 35. Your company takes into account the outcome of human rights risk assessment or human rights due diligence of the suppliers when deciding to do or terminate the business with the supplier.  Unknown/No data [0 point]  Company does not consider the outcome of human rights assessment or due diligence when deciding to do or terminate the business with the supplier. [0 point]  The company considers the outcome of human rights assessment or due diligence when deciding to do or terminate the business with the supplier. [1 point]

Annex 1-12

Part 3: If your company has been conducting human rights due diligence since early 2019 onwards 3.1 To what extent do you think the following factors can encourage or affect human rights operations of an organization (select only 1 option, 1 = Not important to 5 = Very important) Not important

Somewhat important

Moderately important

Very important

Extremely important

National policy/law











International policy/law











Interest from management











Interest from investors











Domestic customer demand











International customer demand











Organization capital/budget Drivers/requests from NGOs and civil society Requirements of the sustainability standards































3.1.1 Other factors that you perceive as important to encourage or influence the human rights operations of the company. (please specify) ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………................................................…

3.2 What are the challenges or limitations encountered in the human rights due diligence process, please give an example of your experience? ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

3.3 Other recommendations ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Annex 1-13

Part 4: If your company has not conducted human rights due diligence since early 2019 4.1 Do you think that it is necessary for your company to conduct the human rights due diligence process in the next 2-3 years?  Unnecessary  Necessary 4.1.1 Based on your answer in 4.1, please provide your reasons as to why it is necessary/unnecessary. …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………

4.2 (If answered “necessary” in 4.1) What are the foreseeable challenges or limitations of your company if you have to conduct the human rights due diligence within the next 2-3 years (select only 1 option, 1 = Not challenging to 5 = Extremely challenging) Not challenging

Somewhat challenging

Moderately challenging

Highly challenging

Extremely challenging

National policy/law











International policy/law











the











Support from management











Organization capital/budget











Human rights body of knowledge











Support from government

4.2.1 Other factors that you perceive as an important challenge or limitation for the company to conduct human rights due diligence in the next 2-3 years (please specify). ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………................................................…

4.3 If your company is to conduct human rights due diligence, what support or promotion on what issue would you require? ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

4.4 Other recommendations Annex 1-14

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Annex 1-15

Annex 2 In-depth interview template In-depth Interview Discussion Guide Stakeholders: Groups of Companies Research Question: Human Rights Due Diligence (HRDD) Readiness Greetings Sir/Madam • Thank you for your time today.

• We are from Sal Forest Company Limited. We are the research team conducting a survey and assessment on human rights due diligence readiness of companies/organizations in Thailand.

• We would like to record our conversation today for research purposes. We are keeping your name/group of interviewees confidential, so you can freely share us the information.

Survey Objective: To assess the readiness of companies in Thailand on conducting human rights due diligence Instructions: 1. You can answer questions in the most "open" way. Your opinions, needs, concerns and suggestions can be communicated straightforwardly. Your information will be kept confidential and used for this research purposes only.

2. If you do not understand the question or meaning of a certain word, please ask the enquiring researcher to clarify.

3. If you are not comfortable answering some questions, please inform the researcher directly.

Remarks: Researchers should be aware of the basic policy of the company to be interviewed. Details are as follows: • Does the company have a declared human rights policy?

• If the company does not publicly declare issues relating to human rights, does the company have other policies that are similar to human rights issues? (i.e. grievance channels or corruption whistleblowing channel, etc.)

• Is sustainability reporting prepared?

Part 1: Information of the interviewee Main questions

Details

• Name of interviewee • Agency/Organization • Position

Annex 2-1

• Did/Has your company applied to be a member of or to join a human rights project?

 Being a member of United Nations Global Compact (UNGC)  Being a member of World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD)  Being a member of Global Compact Network Thailand (GCNT)  Joined a Project of Human Rights Model Organization of the Rights and Liberties Protection Department, Ministry of Justice

• Is your company related to the European Union? (Can select more than 1 option)

 Others, please specify ……………………………………………………  Company exports products to the European Union and/or has major customers in the European Union.  Company is a supplier of a company in the European Union.  Company is a subsidiary, affiliate of a company in the European Union.  Company is a joint venture of a company in the European Union.

Part 2: The current status of the company in its human rights operations Main questions

In-depth questions What, when, why, who, where, how

• Based on your understanding, what does “human rights” mean?

• Do you think “legal compliance” and “human rights protection” are the same?

• Why is your company interested in human rights issue?

• Do you think human rights issue is important to your business operation, and how?

• Human rights policies and practices

• Has your company publicly declared human rights policies and/or commitments to respect the principles of human rights standards, and how?

• Has your company established a working group or assigned a person responsible for human rights operation, and how?

• Your company’s practice on communicating human rights policies to groups of stakeholders?

• Grievance and remediation mechanisms

• From which group of stakeholder/through which channel/in what language does your company receive grievances?

Annex 2-2

Main questions

In-depth questions What, when, why, who, where, how • What is your grievance handling process/is the process disclosed to the public?

1) Does your company classify or categorize the grievances/to what extent is the complainant free to make the grievance?

2) How committed is the process towards the complainant?

- Is there a time limit for grievance management?

- Is the process regularly updated to the complainant?

3) How is the privacy of the complainant protected?

• Is there a remediation policy in the event of human rights violations/is the policy publicly disclosed, and how?

• What is the human rights violation correction and remediation practices of the company?

• What is the lesson-learned process of the company in the event of human rights violation/Is the information obtained from the grievances used to enhance the level of human rights management, and how?

• If your company has conducted HRDD

• The reasons that led your company to conduct human rights due diligence (i.e., it is a policy of the parent company or overseas business partners, or the company had faced adverse human rights violation that affected the business, etc.)

• What is the scope of human rights due diligence that your company has set, and why? (i.e., at the factory level/only domestic business and not suppliers/business including suppliers/ business including suppliers and foreign business operation) • Is the human rights due diligence process conducted by all personnel of the organization? Is external consultant employed? Were experts or NGOs involved in such process, and how?

• Do you think there are disadvantages to human rights due diligence, and why?

• In the future, do you think that it is necessary for your company to regularly conduct human rights due diligence? At what frequency (yearly, every 3 years, etc.)?

Annex 2-3

Main questions

In-depth questions What, when, why, who, where, how • In the past, what are the challenges or limitations that you encountered in the human rights due diligence process?

• Please provide examples of human rights risks that you identified from conducting human rights due diligence (2-3 issues) and your management approach?

• What is the issue that you think your company should be specifically supported, promoted so that your human rights due diligence can be more efficient (i.e., organizational restructuring, determination of indicators or knowledge building)?

• If your company has not conducted HRDD If the company mentions auditing, the researcher should be able to explain that auditing does not cover HRDD, since HRDD requires evaluation through the lenses of human rights activists, as well as risk assessment, prioritization of human rights risks and building stakeholder engagement to solve the problems.

• The reasons why your company does not have human rights due diligence process.

• Within the next 2-3 years, do you think it is necessary for your company to conduct human rights due diligence and why?

• What do you perceive as challenges or limitations of your company in conducting human rights due diligence within the next 2-3 years, and why?

• If you company is to conduct human rights due diligence, what is the issue that you think your company should be specifically supported, promoted, and why?

• Does your company require your suppliers to improve or undertake any action relating to human rights issues, and how?

• Does your company specify policies or practices for suppliers to respect or undertake human rights action, and how?

• Does your company have a monitoring or auditing process for human rights operations of the suppliers, and how? o What is the frequency of the monitoring and auditing process? o If violation is identified, what is the management approach? o What level of violation would cause termination of the business?

• Does your company apply human rights principles as the consideration criteria to do or to terminate the business with the suppliers, and how?

Annex 2-4

Part 3: Additional questions for the interviews with companies that exports to/being a supplier/subsidiary/affiliate/partner of the European Union (EU) Main questions • Have your customers/parent company/business partners in the European Union (EU) (whichever applicable) informed you that the EU is preparing to enact Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence legislation and have they informed you what further actions shall be taken when the legislation is enacted? (This law applies to large EU companies and other large companies active in the EU, see https://ec.europa.eu/info/business-economy-euro/doing-business-eu/corporatesustainability-due-diligence_en for more information.)

• Have your customers/parent company/business partners in the EU required or expected your company to respect human rights? What form does the expectation take? (e.g. specified in the sales contract /in the Supplier Code of Conduct to be followed/in the parent company's policy/informally informed, etc.)

• What are the challenges or difficulties that you encountered in meeting human rights expectations or requirements? (referring to expectations/requirements from customers/parent companies/business partners in the EU) • What are the supporting or promotion measures of your customers/parent company/business partners in the EU which can help or support you to meet human rights expectations/requirements?

• When there are human rights impacts that your company is involved, do you inform your customers/parent company/business partners in the EU? Does notifying such cases affect the remedy or compensation of those affected?

• How do you think the EU should help or support non-European businesses, such as those in Thailand, to enhance human rights operations both by enacting the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Act and after the law is enacted?

Part 3: Other recommendations

Annex 2-5

In-depth Interview Discussion Guide Stakeholders: Rights and Liberties Protection Department Research Question: Human Rights Due Diligence (HRDD) Readiness Greetings Sir/Madam • Thank you for your time today.

• We are from Sal Forest Company Limited. We are the research team conducting a survey and assessment on human rights due diligence readiness of companies/organizations in Thailand.

• We would like to record our conversation today for research purposes. We are keeping your name/group of interviewees confidential, so you can freely share us the information.

Survey Objective: To assess the readiness of companies in Thailand on conducting human rights due diligence Instructions: 1. You can answer questions in the most "open" way. Your opinions, needs, concerns and suggestions can be communicated straightforwardly. Your information will be kept confidential and used for this research purposes only.

2. If you do not understand the question or meaning of a certain word, please ask the enquiring researcher to clarify.

3. If you are not comfortable answering some questions, please inform the researcher directly.

Part 1: Information of the interviewee Main questions • Name of interviewee • Agency/Organization • Position

Details Miss Nareeluc Pairchaiyapoom, Director of International Human Rights Division Rights and Liberties Protection Department

Part 2: The current status of the company in its human rights operations In-depth questions What, when, why, who, where, how

Main questions Introduction How do you think human rights issues are important for Thai companies?

The mission or role of the agency on the human rights issues

• What is your organization's current role, mission, or project to promote human rights issues?

• In your view, do Thai companies still have human rights violations and what do you find most concerning?

Annex 2-6

Main questions

In-depth questions What, when, why, who, where, how • In your view, do you think Thai companies have knowledge and understanding on human rights issues, to what extent?

• What is the overall response of Thai companies to the National Action Plan on Business and Human Rights (NAP)?

• What are some important factors that you see that contribute to Thai companies' awareness of human rights issues?

• Your expectations regarding the human rights performance of Thai companies

Comments on the human rights due diligence by Thai companies

• Current challenges, concerns, problems, obstacles that you think have resulted in Thai companies failing to conduct human rights due diligence.

• What are the government's challenges in drafting a human rights due diligence law?

Part 3: Additional questions for the research project on survey of Thai companies’ opinions on the enactment of the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence of the European Union (EU) Main question • Have you ever heard about incidents of human rights violations committed by Thai companies (related to the European Union, such as being a customer, subsidiary or business partner)? How do EU companies deal with Thai companies? Is there any remedy or compensation for those affected? (Please provide example case to your knowledge) • Do you think EU companies should have measures or guidelines to assist, promote and support Thai companies that are business partners to better conduct human rights due diligence, and how?

Part 4: Other recommendations

Annex 2-7

In-depth Interview Discussion Questions Stakeholders: Office of Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Research Question: Human Rights Due Diligence (HRDD) Readiness Greetings Sir/Madam • Thank you for your time today.

• We are from Sal Forest Company Limited. We are the research team conducting a survey and assessment on human rights due diligence readiness of companies/organizations in Thailand.

• We would like to record our conversation today for research purposes. We are keeping your name/group of interviewees confidential, so you can freely share us the information.

Survey Objective: To assess the readiness of companies in Thailand on conducting human rights due diligence Instructions: 1. You can answer questions in the most "open" way. Your opinions, needs, concerns and suggestions can be communicated straightforwardly. Your information will be kept confidential and used for this research purposes only.

2. If you do not understand the question or meaning of a certain word, please ask the enquiring researcher to clarify.

3. If you are not comfortable answering some questions, please inform the researcher directly.

Part 1: Information of the interviewee Main questions

Details

• Name of interviewee • Agency/Organization • Position

Part 2: The current status of the company in its human rights operations Main questions Introduction Based on your understanding, what does “human rights” mean?

In-depth questions What, when, why, who, where, how • Do you think “legal compliance” and “human rights protection” are the same?

• Do you think human rights issue is important for listed companies, and how?

Annex 2-8

The mission or role of the agency on the • What is your organization's current role, mission, or project to promote human rights issues? human rights issues • In your view, do you think listed companies have knowledge and understanding on human rights issues, to what extent?

• What is the overall response of Thai companies to the human rights disclosure under One Report which is required for the first time for the business performance of 2021?

• What are some important factors that you see that contribute to the awareness of listed companies on human rights issues?

• Have listed companies had any human rights violations in the past?

• Has the SEC ever received human rights grievances from stakeholders of listed companies, and how?

• Your expectations regarding the human rights performance of listed companies • In your view, to what extent do you think Thai investors acknowledge, understand, or are aware of human rights issues?

• Does your organization contribute to advancing human rights issues with institutional investors, and how?

• What role do you think the SEC should play in advancing business and human rights issues in the National Action Plan, Phase 2, which is currently undergoing public advisory process?

Comments on the human rights due diligence by listed companies

• Do you think it is necessary for listed companies to conduct human rights due diligence, and why?

• Current challenges, concerns, problems, obstacles that you think have resulted in listed companies failing to conduct human rights due diligence.

• In the next 2-3 years, if there are requirements/legislations requiring listed companies to conduct human rights due diligence, how do you think your agency can contribute to the regulation of listed companies on this issue?

Annex 2-9

Part 3: Additional questions for the research project on survey of Thai companies’ opinions on the enactment of the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence of the European Union (EU) Main questions • Have you ever heard about incidents of human rights violations committed by Thai companies (related to the European Union, such as being a customer, subsidiary or business partner)? How do EU companies deal with Thai companies? Is there any remedy or compensation for those affected? (Please provide example case to your knowledge) • Do you think EU companies should have measures or guidelines to assist, promote and support Thai companies that are business partners to better conduct human rights due diligence, and how?

Part 4: Other recommendations

Annex 2-10

In-depth Interview Discussion Questions Stakeholders: Federation of Thai SMEs Research Question: Human Rights Due Diligence (HRDD) Readiness Greetings Sir/Madam • Thank you for your time today.

• We are from Sal Forest Company Limited. We are the research team conducting a survey and assessment on human rights due diligence readiness of companies/organizations in Thailand.

• We would like to record our conversation today for research purposes. We are keeping your name/group of interviewees confidential, so you can freely share us the information.

Survey Objective: To assess the readiness of companies in Thailand on conducting human rights due diligence Instructions: 1. You can answer questions in the most "open" way. Your opinions, needs, concerns and suggestions can be communicated straightforwardly. Your information will be kept confidential and used for this research purposes only.

2. If you do not understand the question or meaning of a certain word, please ask the enquiring researcher to clarify.

3. If you are not comfortable answering some questions, please inform the researcher directly.

Part 1: Information of the interviewee Main questions

Details

• Name of interviewee • Agency/Organization • Position

Part 2: The current status of the company in its human rights operations Main questions

In-depth questions What, when, why, who, where, how

Introduction Based on your understanding, what does “human rights” mean?

• Do you think “legal compliance” and “human rights protection” are the same?

The mission or role of the agency on

• In your view, do you think SMEs have knowledge and understanding on

the human rights issues

• Do you think human rights issue is important for SMEs, and how? human rights issues, to what extent?

• What are some important factors that you see that contribute to the awareness of SMEs on human rights issues?

• Have SMEs had any human rights violations in the past?

Annex 2-11

Main questions

In-depth questions What, when, why, who, where, how • Have you ever received human rights grievance, and how? (please provide examples of issues experienced) • Does your organization contribute to advancing human rights issues for SMEs, and how?

• Your expectations regarding the human rights performance of SMEs

Comments on the human rights due diligence by SMEs

• Do you think it is necessary for SMEs to conduct human rights due diligence, and why?

• Current challenges, concerns, problems, obstacles that you think have resulted in SMEs failing to conduct human rights due diligence.

• In the next 2-3 years, if there are requirements/legislations requiring Thai companies to conduct human rights due diligence, how do you think your agency can contribute to the promotion or support to Thai companies in human rights due diligence conduct?

Part 3: Other recommendations

Annex 2-12

In-depth Interview Discussion Questions Stakeholders: EarthRights International Research Question: Human Rights Due Diligence (HRDD) Readiness Greetings Sir/Madam • Thank you for your time today.

• We are from Sal Forest Company Limited. We are the research team conducting a survey and assessment on human rights due diligence readiness of companies/organizations in Thailand.

• We would like to record our conversation today for research purposes. We are keeping your name/group of interviewees confidential, so you can freely share us the information.

Survey Objective: To assess the readiness of companies in Thailand on conducting human rights due diligence Instructions: 1. You can answer questions in the most "open" way. Your opinions, needs, concerns and suggestions can be communicated straightforwardly. Your information will be kept confidential and used for this research purposes only.

2. If you do not understand the question or meaning of a certain word, please ask the enquiring researcher to clarify.

3. If you are not comfortable answering some questions, please inform the researcher directly.

Part 1: Information of the interviewee Main questions

Details

• Name of interviewee • Agency/Organization • Position

Part 2: The current status of the company in its human rights operations

Annex 2-13

Main questions

In-depth questions What, when, why, who, where, how

Introduction Based on your understanding, what does “human rights” mean?

• Do you think “legal compliance” and “human rights protection” are the same?

The mission or role of the agency on the human rights issues

• What is your organization's mission/role relating to human rights operation?

• Human rights violations from the operation of business with environmental impact that you perceive as urgent and requires immediate attention.

• In your view, does Thai companies realize the connection between human rights and environment?

• To what extent are Thai companies aware of protection of indigenous rights and community rights that are negatively affected from business operation?

• What are some important factors that you see that contribute to the awareness of Thai companies on human rights issues?

• Your expectations regarding the human rights performance of Thai companies

Comments on the human rights due diligence by Thai companies

• Do you think human rights due diligence can contribute to the mitigation of human rights violation in Thai companies, and how?

• Current challenges, concerns, problems, obstacles that you think have

• Do you think human rights issue is important for the business operation of Thai companies, and how?

resulted in Thai companies failing to conduct human rights due diligence.

• In the next 2-3 years, if there are requirements/legislations requiring Thai companies to conduct human rights due diligence, what are the promotion or support that you think Thai companies will need in order to conduct human rights due diligence?

Perspective on companies that export products to the European Union (EU) • What are the supporting or promotion measures of customers/parent company/business partners in the EU which can help or support Thai companies to meet human rights expectations/requirements?

• How do you think the EU should help or support non-European businesses, such as those in Thailand, to enhance human rights operations both by enacting the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Act and after the law is enacted?

Part 3: Additional questions for the research project on survey of Thai companies’ opinions on the enactment of the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence of the European Union (EU) Annex 2-14

Main questions • Have you ever heard about incidents of human rights violations committed by Thai companies (related to the European Union, such as being a customer, subsidiary or business partner)? How do EU companies deal with Thai companies? Is there any remedy or compensation for those affected? (Please provide example case to your knowledge) • Do you think EU companies should have measures or guidelines to assist, promote and support Thai companies that are business partners to better conduct human rights due diligence, and how?

Part 4: Other recommendations

Annex 2-15

In-depth Interview Discussion Questions Stakeholders: Foundation for Human Rights and Development (HRD) Research Question: Human Rights Due Diligence (HRDD) Readiness Greetings Sir/Madam • Thank you for your time today.

• We are from Sal Forest Company Limited. We are the research team conducting a survey and assessment on human rights due diligence readiness of companies/organizations in Thailand.

• We would like to record our conversation today for research purposes. We are keeping your name/group of interviewees confidential, so you can freely share us the information.

Survey Objective: To assess the readiness of companies in Thailand on conducting human rights due diligence Instructions: 1. You can answer questions in the most "open" way. Your opinions, needs, concerns and suggestions can be communicated straightforwardly. Your information will be kept confidential and used for this research purposes only.

2. If you do not understand the question or meaning of a certain word, please ask the enquiring researcher to clarify.

3. If you are not comfortable answering some questions, please inform the researcher directly.

Part 1: Information of the interviewee Main questions

Details

• Name of interviewee • Agency/Organization • Position

Part 2: The current status of the company in its human rights operations Main questions

Introduction Based on your understanding, what does “human rights” mean?

The mission or role of the agency on the human rights issues

In-depth questions What, when, why, who, where, how • Do you think “legal compliance” and “human rights protection” are the same?

• Do you think human rights issue is important for Thai companies, and how?

• What is your organization's mission/role relating to human rights operation?

• Human rights violations from the operation of business that you perceive as urgent and requires immediate attention.

Annex 2-16

Main questions

Comments on the human rights due diligence by Thai companies

In-depth questions What, when, why, who, where, how • In your view, to what extent do you think Thai companies acknowledge, understand, and are aware of human rights issues?

• To what extent do Thai companies recognize the rights of migrant workers?

At present, to what extent are Thai companies aware of protection of rights of migrant workers?

• What are some important factors that you see that contribute to the awareness of Thai companies on human rights issues?

• Your expectations regarding the human rights performance of Thai companies • Do you think human rights due diligence can contribute to the mitigation of human rights violation in Thai companies, and how?

• Current challenges, concerns, problems, obstacles that you think have resulted in Thai companies failing to conduct human rights due diligence.

• In the next 2-3 years, if there are requirements/legislations requiring Thai companies to conduct human rights due diligence, what are the promotion or support that you think Thai companies will need in order to conduct human rights due diligence?

Part 3: Additional questions for the research project on survey of Thai companies’ opinions on the enactment of the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence of the European Union (EU) Main questions • Have you ever heard about incidents of human rights violations committed by Thai companies (related to the European Union, such as being a customer, subsidiary or business partner)? How do EU companies deal with Thai companies? Is there any remedy or compensation for those affected? (Please provide example case to your knowledge) • Do you think EU companies should have measures or guidelines to assist, promote and support Thai companies that are business partners to better conduct human rights due diligence, and how?

Part 4: Other recommendations

Annex 2-17

In-depth Interview Discussion Questions Stakeholders: Sor Rattanamanee Polkla - Community Resource Centre Foundation Research Question: Human Rights Due Diligence (HRDD) Readiness Greetings Sir/Madam • Thank you for your time today.

• We are from Sal Forest Company Limited. We are the research team conducting a survey and assessment on human rights due diligence readiness of companies/organizations in Thailand.

• We would like to record our conversation today for research purposes. We are keeping your name/group of interviewees confidential, so you can freely share us the information.

Survey Objective: To assess the readiness of companies in Thailand on conducting human rights due diligence Instructions: 1. You can answer questions in the most "open" way. Your opinions, needs, concerns and suggestions can be communicated straightforwardly. Your information will be kept confidential and used for this research purposes only.

2. If you do not understand the question or meaning of a certain word, please ask the enquiring researcher to clarify.

3. If you are not comfortable answering some questions, please inform the researcher directly.

Part 1: Information of the interviewee Main questions

Details

• Name of interviewee • Agency/Organization • Position

Part 2: The current status of the company in its human rights operations Main questions

Introduction Based on your understanding, what does “human rights” mean?

The mission or role of the agency on the human rights issues

In-depth questions What, when, why, who, where, how • Do you think “legal compliance” and “human rights protection” are the same?

• Do you think human rights issue is important for Thai companies, and how?

• What is your organization's mission/role relating to human rights operation?

• Human rights violations from the operation of business that you perceive as urgent and requires immediate attention.

Annex 2-18

Main questions

In-depth questions What, when, why, who, where, how • In your view, to what extent do you think Thai companies acknowledge, understand, and are aware of human rights issues?

• To what extent are Thai companies aware of protection of indigenous rights and community rights that are negatively affected from business operation?

• What are some important factors that you see that contribute to the awareness of Thai companies on human rights issues?

• Your expectations regarding the human rights performance of Thai Comments on the human rights due diligence by Thai companies

companies • Do you think human rights due diligence can contribute to the mitigation of human rights violation in Thai companies, and how?

• Current challenges, concerns, problems, obstacles that you think have resulted in Thai companies failing to conduct human rights due diligence.

• In the next 2-3 years, if there are requirements/legislations requiring Thai companies to conduct human rights due diligence, what are the promotion or support that you think Thai companies will need in order to conduct human rights due diligence?

Part 3: Additional questions for the research project on survey of Thai companies’ opinions on the enactment of the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence of the European Union (EU) Main questions • Have you ever heard about incidents of human rights violations committed by Thai companies (related to the European Union, such as being a customer, subsidiary or business partner)? How do EU companies deal with Thai companies? Is there any remedy or compensation for those affected? (Please provide example case to your knowledge) • Do you think EU companies should have measures or guidelines to assist, promote and support Thai companies that are business partners to better conduct human rights due diligence, and how?

Annex 2-19

Part 4: Other recommendations

Annex 2-20

Annex 3 1st Workshop - Presentation of the draft survey results of human rights due diligence readiness of companies in Thailand and public hearing from the private sector The research team organized the 1st Workshop on the presentation of the draft survey results of the human rights due diligence readiness of companies in Thailand and public hearing from the private sector on the 12th of October 2022. A total of 40 companies and relevant organizations participated both offline and online, divided into: 11 companies (27.50%) from banking, securities, and accounting sectors; 11 companies (27.50%) from agricultural and food industry; 8 companies (20.00%) from energy and utilities; 4 companies (10.00%) from fashion, steel and metal products; and 6 (15.00%) entities from relevant agencies and civil society sector, as shown in Figure Annex 3-1.

Figure Annex 3 - 1 Proportion of participants in the 1st workshop by industry types

ธนาคาร หลัsecurities กทรัพย์ และบั ชี Banking, and ญ accounting

15% 27%

10%

ธุรAgriculture กิจเกษตรและอาหาร and food พลัPower งงานและสาธารณู and utilitiesปโภค Fashion, andตmetal products แฟชั ่น เหล็กsteel และผลิ ภัณฑ์โลหะ

20% 28%

and civil societyงคม หน่Relevant วยงานที่เagencies กี่ยวข้องและภาคประชาสั

The research team collected opinions and recommendations on conducting human rights due diligence by the companies in Thailand. Based on the brainstorming of comments from the companies and related agencies participated in this workshop, the comments can be divided into 2 main issues: the limitations and challenges of Thai companies in conducting human rights due diligence; and recommendations to relevant agencies to promote the implementation of human rights due diligence, with details as follows: Annex 3-21

1)

Limitations and challenges of Thai companies in conducting human rights due diligence Companies and agencies participated in the event provided that, at present, human rights issues are still perceived as far-fetched by the Thai business sector. This is especially true among small and medium-sized companies that have not prioritized the importance of human rights issues as much as the survival of the business. They are also unable to link human rights issues with their own business operations because they do not yet have knowledge and understanding of human rights and business. Therefore, small and mediumsized companies are the group that requires more human rights knowledge support from both government agencies and large companies, so that small and medium-sized companies can recognize the importance of human rights issues in their business operations, as well as connecting human rights issues with their own business.

Meanwhile, large companies face difficulty where personnel of different levels have different knowledge and understanding of human rights and business. In particular, if the management does not understand and with the absence of the tone from the top on how to operate business that takes into account human rights issues, it will result in internal operators being unable to drive the human rights operations for the organization. They will be unable to raise awareness of human rights issues among stakeholders in the organization's supply chain.

The participating companies and agencies viewed that, overall, most companies in Thailand are unable to clearly assign a person responsible for overseeing human rights operations. There are no sources of reference in guidelines or from related agencies that can suggest which department in the organization should be responsible for such task. At present, companies with human rights operations will choose their own responsible department which can be different from one company to another, i.e., sustainability department, corporate governance department, human resources department or secretarial department. The participating companies and agencies deemed that without the recommendation on which department shall be delegated with human rights operations, each company will not dare to embark on this journey by themselves, particularly small companies with few departments.

The participating companies and agencies considered that the inability to clearly Annex 3-22

identify what is human rights violation may result in the inefficiency of each company to handle grievances. Since human rights issues of each company are different, the company may not be able to identify which are grievances from human rights violations or which are grievances from normal use of products and services. Currently, each company relies on its own discretion to make decisions on which is human rights violations or which is general grievance. The participating companies and agencies considered that discretionary decisions can cause significant risks of the company failing to directly solve or remedy the grievance and may cause conflicts between the company and the complainants in the future.

On conducting human rights due diligence, the participating companies and agencies viewed that government agencies still lack clear practices and evaluation criteria for human rights due diligence. As a result, companies that are currently conducting human rights due diligence would refer to different international practices and evaluation criteria, depending on the discretion of each company on which source they want to cite from. This creates unstandardized approach on human rights due diligence among companies in Thailand.

Human rights due diligence still requires extensive knowledge and understanding.

Although there are subject matter experts who can provide basic advice to businesses, in reality, operators still need to have a strong knowledge and understanding of human rights issues, so that they can make accurate decisions and not causing impact which can lead to human rights violation in the future. Particularly the banking, securities and accounting businesses with supply chains primarily linked to clients, operators need to have a strong knowledge and understanding of human rights issues. They also need to have the ability to inspect whether there are any human rights violation in the client’s business, before providing financial support or services to individual customers. This is to prevent human rights violations from clients in their own supply chain.

Large companies with large number of supply chain stakeholders also face obstacles from the fact that supply chain stakeholders have different knowledge and understanding.

Especially suppliers who still focus on only maintaining workers according to the minimum legal requirements and have undertaken no clear human rights operation. As a result, the company remains vulnerable to risks of human rights violations from suppliers in the supply chain. In addition, conducting human rights due diligence throughout the supply chain is still Annex 3-23

a major challenge for large companies, as they do not know where to commence their operations. Therefore, many companies do not have human rights due diligence, and if the scope of assessment is expanded, it is foreseeable that human rights risk issues will also become more complex.

Summary of limitations and challenges of Thai companies •

At present, the Thai business sector does not pay much attention to human rights issues, especially small and medium-sized companies, as it is necessary for them to prioritize the survival of their businesses. Also, they are unable to see how human rights issues are connected with their business operations.

•

The management still lack understanding and tone from the top in conducting business that considers human rights. As a result, operators are unable to steer forward human rights actions in the organization.

•

Lack of guidelines or relevant agencies to provide advice on human rights operations.

As a result, companies do not know to which department to delegate their human rights operations.

•

Lack of clear practices and evaluation criteria for human rights due diligence. As a result, companies do not know where to commence their human rights due diligence process.

•

Conducting human rights due diligence requires extensive knowledge and understanding. Especially, in the actual operation, operators need to have a strong understanding of human rights issues.

•

Supply chain suppliers continue to focus only on maintaining workers according to the legal requirements without clear human rights policies or practices.

2) Recommendations to relevant agencies to promote the implementation of human rights due diligence The participating companies and agencies believed that relevant agencies should play a role in raising awareness on business and human rights through communication. The relevant agencies should connect the business sectors with opportunities to communicate and exchange knowledge and understanding among each other. The relevant agencies can Annex 3-24

organize workshop in various provinces free of charge to attract small and medium-sized companies to attend meetings and exchange knowledge and understanding. However, the participating companies and agencies have not been able to determine exactly which agency should be clearly designated as awareness raiser. In other words, if it is a government agency, it may delay the implementation process, or if it is a business sector, it will only engage stakeholders in its own supply chain. If it is a civil society sector, the business sector may be reluctant to join.

The participating companies and agencies saw that human rights issues are important and should be fostered since a very young age. Therefore, human rights subject is expected to be included in the curriculum from kindergarten to university levels. This is to foster the idea of what human rights and violations are. What should we not do to our friends because it is considered a violation of human rights? At the university level, students should be taught the importance of human rights issues in business operations so that students know how human rights violations are in the workplace or how to manage a business in a way that it does not violate human rights. In vocational education, human rights issues should also be taught to educate what is an appropriate and non-violating labor maintenance.

Relevant agencies should provide clear guidelines to businesses on how each type of company should conduct human rights due diligence. What level of due diligence is required and what are the requirements or criteria for assessment so that each type of company can relate and apply that approach to the organization's operations. Such guidelines should be prepared by a specific agency to prevent conflicts from different assessment approaches.

However, guidelines should not be prepared as a single standard because they create a greater burden on small and medium-sized companies. Also, a single standard may not be in line with the context of each type of business. Therefore, guidelines for human rights due diligence developed should be appropriate to the size and type of business and should be practical for the business sector. The approach may be divided into phases, starting from conducting human rights due diligence at the corporate level and expanding to key stakeholders of the organization, i.e., key suppliers or major customers, and eventually covering stakeholders throughout the supply chain.

To enable human rights due diligence to occur throughout the supply chain, it is Annex 3-25

essential for relevant agencies to engage with large companies in conducting human rights due diligence of small and medium-sized companies in the supply chain. The relevant agencies should act as a mentor and take an on-hand approach to guide the small and medium-sized companies, enabling each company to carry out human rights due diligence on its own.

In addition, to enable each company to truly drive human rights operations, a clear tone from the top is highly essential. The participating companies and agencies viewed that that tone from the top contributes to human rights operations. In addition, in order to attract more companies to take action on human rights, tax benefits should be provided to companies that conduct human rights due diligence in order to attract companies to pay more attention and start conducting human rights due diligence, as well as granting award to companies that conduct human rights due diligence.

The participating companies and agencies expect relevant agencies to establish a hotline to provide advice to companies and organizations when human rights disputes arise.

The adviser on this hotline shall be an expert who has been trained and certified as sufficiently knowledgeable to provide efficient advice to the companies. Also, trainings shall be provided to companies and organizations interested in sending their employees to train and they should be certified as having the qualifications to deliberate human rights issues that arise in the company's supply chain.

Summary of the recommendations to the relevant agencies •

Workshops should be organized in multiple provinces, especially with small and medium-sized companies, in order to increase the exchange of knowledge and understanding on human rights issues.

•

Human rights education should be incorporated into the curriculum from kindergarten to university levels.

•

Clear guidelines for conducting human rights due diligence should be established. The guideline should be appropriate to the context of each type of business and provides step-by-step guidance.

•

Mentorship and on-hand approach shall be undertaken for small and medium-sized companies to help each company take its own human rights operation.

Annex 3-26

•

Top management should demonstrate a clear intention to conduct business that takes into account human rights issues (Tone from the Top).

•

Tax incentives should be provided, so that companies are incentivized to conduct human rights due diligence and to attract more companies to conduct more human rights due diligence.

•

A hotline should be established for advising companies and organizations in case of human rights disputes.

Annex 3-27

Annex 4 Meeting on presentation of survey results on human rights due diligence readiness of companies in Thailand The research team organized a meeting on the presentation of survey results of the human rights due diligence readiness of companies in Thailand on the 28th of April 2023. A total of 76 companies and relevant organizations participated both offline and online, divided into: 33 companies (43.42%) from the business sector; 16 agencies (21.05%) from the regional and international organizations; 13 organizations (17.11%) from the civil society sector; 9 entities (11.84%) from government organizations and agencies and educational institutions; and 5 organizations (6.58%) from the media and general public, as shown in Figure Annex 41.

Figure Annex 4 - 1 Proportion of meeting attendees by types of organization 3.95%

Banking,การเงิ finance andรconsultant ธนาคาร น และธุ กิจให้คาปรึกษา

5.26%

6.58%

6.58%

business ธุHotel รกิจโรงแรม machinery automotive ธุMetal รกิจผลิproducts, ตภัณฑ์โลหะ เครื่องจักand รและยานยนต์ Agriculture and food

ธุรกิจเกษตรและอาหาร

21.05%

Power and utilities

พลังงานและสาธารณูปโภค

21.05%

Fashion and health care

แฟชั่นและผลิตภัณฑ์สุขภาพ

Civil society organizations

11.84%

หน่วยงานภาคประชาสังคม

Government agencies and educational

องค์ กรรัฐ หน่วยงานราชการ และสถานศึกษา institution

17.11% 1.32%

5.26%

องค์ กรระหว่ างภูinternational มิภาค และองค์organizations กรระหว่างประเทศ Regional and สืMedia ่อและประชาชนผู ้ทีสpublic นใจ and general

The research team collected participants' opinions on the survey results, and the recommendations on conducting human rights due diligence of Thai companies, which can be divided into 3 main issues: comments on the results of the survey on the human rights due diligence readiness of Thai companies; issue from the discussion on "Way forward on HRDD in Thailand and Reflections on the Key Findings of the Study"; and recommendations on enhancing the human rights due diligence readiness of companies in Thailand. Details are as follows: Annex 4-1

1)

Comments on the results of the survey on the human rights due diligence readiness of Thai companies Attendees asked about factors that contributed to the low number of samples in the online survey responses (57 respondents). On this issue, the Rights and Liberties Protection Department and the Federation of Thai SMEs had helped distribute the surveys online to ensure that stakeholders have comprehensive access to the survey. Even so, the survey contained large number of questions and the respondents should have certain level of knowledge and understanding or familiarity with the human rights operations to complete the survey. Hence, it resulted in the small number of respondents.

Attendees enquired that, since large companies have high level of human rights due diligence readiness, why have they not conducted human rights due diligence. In this regard, the research team found that large companies with a high level of readiness are those with the mechanism, policies and procedures necessary for the protection of human rights, such as human rights policies, grievance and remediation mechanisms, or human rights requirements imposed upon suppliers, etc. However, the reason they have not conducted the human rights due diligence may be because they do not understand what is human rights due diligence, how does the process work, as well as the requirement that it has to be conducted throughout the supply chain, involving many stakeholders when they are not sufficiently ready.

2)

Issue from the discussion on "Way forward on HRDD in Thailand and Reflections on the Key Findings of the Study" After the presentation of the survey result and responding to comments relating to the findings, the event also hosted a panel discussion on “Way forward on HRDD in Thailand and Reflections on the Key Findings of the Study”, with 5 panelists, as follows: 1) Miss Siriluk Younglert, Senior Manager of Human Resources – Support and Management of Labor and Social Development from Thai Union Group Public Company Limited; 2) Miss Urai Suksawat, owner of Chokudomrat 118 Limited Partnership (Chokudomrat Crab Raft); 3) Mr. Roongroj Achatewan, Chairperson of Privileges and Marketing Committee, Federation of Thai SMEs; Annex 4-2

4)

Miss Nareeluc Pairchaiyapoom, Director of International Human Rights Division, Rights and Liberties Protection Department; and 5) Ms. Alexandra Kuxova, Policy Officer, Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs (DG-GROW), European Union Commission The panel discussion was moderated by Miss Kannika Kittivejchakul , the moderator of Chao-Tan-Lok FM 96.5 radio channel. Each of the panelists exchanged comments on the issues relating to human rights due diligence, as follows: Miss Siriluk Younglert, Senior Manager of Human Resources – Support and Management of Labor and Social Development from Thai Union Group Public Company Limited (Thai Union) presented the policies related to Thai Union's human rights principles, such as Business Ethics and Labor Code of Conduct, non-discrimination policy, non-reprisal policy, etc. Thai Union also clearly established a human rights working group for the conduct of human rights due diligence. In addition, trainings on human rights issues were provided to employees and suppliers of the Company, which includes internal and external monitoring and auditing processes to continuously improve and develop its human right operations.

However, Thai Union still faces multiple challenges in conducting human rights due diligence, i.e., the expectation from civil society sector for the company to improve its human rights action beyond the issue of child labor or forced labor. For example, the announcement of a policy to bear all employment expenses for foreign workers, etc.; challenges from more intensive requirements and laws on human rights issues, as well as maintaining a level of knowledge and understanding on human rights issues for many suppliers in the company's supply chain.

Miss Urai Suksawat, owner of Chokudomrat 118 Limited Partnership (Chokudomrat Crab Raft) presented the labor maintenance policy of the crab raft that prioritizes workers' welfare such as housing, social security, medical expenses, and seamen’s insurance, etc. The company viewed that maintaining good care of employees will result in the company being able to operate its business sustainably. However, at present, even though the crab raft has not conducted human rights due diligence, the company is willing to cooperate with various agencies in enhancing human rights implementation as human rights issues are a matter of great importance to the crab raft. This is reflected by the fact that all operations of the crab raft are traceable, both in terms of labor and fisheries.

Mr. Roongroj Achatewan, Chairperson of Privileges and Marketing Committee, Annex 4-3

Federation of Thai SMEs presented the concerns of small and medium-sized companies (SMEs). If human rights due diligence is required, Mr. Roongroj viewed that SMEs do not have sufficient knowledge and understanding of human rights issues. Human rights issues cover quite a wide range of activities, and most SMEs still do not know what constitutes human rights violations. In addition, SMEs still need to prioritize business recovery after the COVID-19 pandemic. As a result, human rights issues are given secondary priority.

In addition, Mr. Roongroj viewed that if there is going to be a law for SMEs to conduct human rights due diligence, there should be legislation aimed at promoting SMEs to conduct human rights due diligence rather than punishing them. This is because, in the past, SMEs have been affected by law enforcement and different interpretations of laws by different agencies.

This has resulted in the leverage of legal gaps to exploit SMEs. Miss Nareeluc Pairchaiyapoom, Director of International Human Rights Division, Rights and Liberties Protection Department presented the achievement from the effort to drive principles of responsible business and respect for human rights through the National Action Plan on Business and Human Rights (NAP) Phase 1 (2019-2022). NAP combines mandatory measures for government agencies and voluntary measures for the business sector to address human rights issues in four main areas: (1) labor; (2) community, land, natural resources and environment, (3) human rights defenders, and (4) foreign investment and multinational enterprises.

Miss Nareeluc gave examples of the achievements of government agencies that contribute to advancing human rights issues in the business sector from the implementation of NAP Phase 1. This includes: the Office of Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) requiring all companies listed on the Stock Exchange to report on Environmental Social and Governance (ESG) performance; Neighboring Countries Economic Development Cooperation Agency (NEDA) (public organization) added the conditions on human rights due diligence before approving loans to businesses or projects to be implemented in a neighboring country. Miss Nareeluc sees that the above successful examples have contributed to encouraging the business sector to conduct human rights due diligence in the future.

Meanwhile, the development of the business sector during the implementation of NAP Phase 1 revealed an increase of human rights action. This includes disclosure of human rights policies, determination of practices to prevent human rights violation, as well as conducting human rights due diligence. However, such actions are still concentrated mostly in large Annex 4-4

companies, which is a challenge for the Rights and Liberties Protection Department to scale up its drive on responsible business conduct and respecting human rights among SMEs. For the action plan of the Rights and Liberties Protection Department to push the business sector to conduct human rights due diligence in the future, it will focus on expanding knowledge and understanding of human rights issues to SMEs. Guidelines on human rights due diligence will be developed for SMEs, including scaling up the task through training to be provided to the business sector, especially SMEs across the country, as well as studying the legal development guidelines to drive the business sector to conduct responsible business that respects human rights.

Ms. Alexandra Kuxova Policy Officer, Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs (DG-GROW), European Union Commission presented the essence of the draft law on conducting sustainability audit in the EU supply chain or EU Directive on Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence. The law requires EU companies to conduct human rights due diligence, which may affect companies in Thailand that sell products or are in the supply chain of companies in the EU, as they will be required to conduct human rights due diligence as well. Conducting a human rights due diligence by companies in the European Union focus not only on human rights, but also on environmental issues.

However, the EU has initiated a number of international initiatives to support companies that sell products or are in their supply chains in complying with such legislation.

For example, the European Union has created a platform that gathers measures and tools for companies located both inside and outside the EU to conduct human rights due diligence.

3) Recommendations on enhancing the human rights due diligence readiness of companies in Thailand Participants made recommendation to enhance the human rights due diligence readiness of companies in Thailand, as follows: •

Human rights practices should be prepared separately by industry, as each industry has different risks and pressures in implementing different human rights strategies. For example, the construction industry is, by nature, a domestic industry and is not related to the export or import of goods. Therefore, it is not pressured by foreign countries to take human rights operations. This may result in entrepreneurs not paying attention to human rights operations as it should.

Annex 4-5

•

Entrepreneurs in each industry should share risk issues and opinions on conducting human rights actions during the preparation of the National Action Plan on Business and Human Rights Phase 2. This is to obtain measures or guidelines that can directly solve problems in each type of industry.

•

Businesses should conduct human rights due diligence that are consistent with the human rights situation in the country, such as the issue of the right to association, rights of indigenous peoples and human rights defenders, etc.

Annex 4-6