Transparency
Every score, explainable
A risk score is only useful if an auditor, a regulator and the supplier itself can all follow how it was reached. Nothing here is a black box.
Scoring components
Scoring model
No invented weights. A score is the sum of six sourced components — country prevalence (max 35, Walk Free Global Slavery Index 2023), state response gap (20, ILO Protocol P029 ratification and government response), sector exploitation intensity (25, ILO global estimates), goods listed for that country and sector (12, US DOL forced/child labour list), import bans and sanctions exposure (10, UFLPA and CBP measures) and the supplier's own operating model (23) — normalised to 0 – 98.
Low
0 – 34
Elevated
35 – 64
High
65 – 98
Recruitment through intermediaries is the heaviest single operating factor (+14), because debt bondage and document retention overwhelmingly enter a chain through labour brokers. Prevalence uses a square-root curve so extreme outliers such as North Korea (104.6 per 1,000) do not flatten every other difference.
Weightings in use
COUNTRY
SECTOR
Data sources
Data sources behind every score
ILO Indicators of Forced Labour
The eleven-indicator framework every score maps back to.
ILO / Walk Free / IOM Global Estimates
Baseline prevalence by region and by form of exploitation.
ILO Profits and Poverty (2024)
Economic incentive modelling behind sector weighting.
US DOL List of Goods Produced by Child or Forced Labor
Goods and country pairings that raise a sector's base weight.
UFLPA Entity List (DHS)
Direct import-prohibition exposure for named entities.
Worker reports from your own sites
Confidential, first-hand signals — weighted highest of all inputs.
Indicators and confidentiality safeguards
ILO indicators scored
Confidentiality safeguards
- — Worker reports ask for no name, no employee number and no location.
- — Reports are never shown to a supplier in a form that could identify a person.
- — A cluster is only surfaced once enough separate reports exist to protect anonymity.
- — Workers pay nothing and need no employer permission to report.
Stated limitations
- — A high score means the conditions that enable forced labour are present, not that exploitation has occurred.
- — Absence of reports is not evidence of safety — it often means workers do not feel safe enough to report.
- — Country and sector weights are statistical averages; a well-governed site in a high-risk country can be low risk in practice.
- — Every escalation requires human verification before any commercial or legal action is taken.
Regulatory alignment
Regulatory alignment
CSDDD
European Union
Requires in-scope companies to identify, prevent and mitigate adverse human rights impacts in their own operations and chains of activities.
EU FLR
European Union
Prohibits placing on the EU market products made with forced labour, with authorities empowered to investigate and order withdrawal.
UFLPA
United States
Creates a rebuttable presumption that goods linked to Xinjiang are made with forced labour and barred from import.
MSA
United Kingdom
Requires larger businesses to publish an annual statement on steps taken to prevent modern slavery in their operations and supply chains.
LkSG
Germany
Obliges companies to run risk analyses, preventive measures and a complaints procedure across their supply chains.
ÅPL
Norway
Requires due diligence on fundamental human rights and decent working conditions, plus a public account and a right to information.