While it is not clear if the company identifies migrant workers as being particularly at risks for forced labour, they are however mentioned among the company's action plan to prevent, mitigate or address human rights risks: "Development of tailored assessment tool for our production sites employing foreign migrant workers. (...) Face-to-face interviews with foreign migrant workers on their working and living conditions. (...) Special inspection on forced labour for migrant workers on supplier level." (p. 6) The same applies to child labour: "Conducting of special child labour detection audits for first-and second-tier suppliers around middle school and high school vacation period." (p. 6)

It doesn't appear that the threshold of explicit statement of risk is met. While migrants workers are repeatedly identified implying they are a high risk subset of the workforce there lacks a clear identification the risks faced rather the focus is on the mechanisms in place for their protection. As well as what Isabelle has noted above there is further multiple identification in key activities (point 2, 4 and 5) and the identification that there is risks (‘to mitigate forced labour risks among suppliers employing migrant workers…’ - pg 11). Perhaps more clearly child labour is also identified as a salient risk (pg 3) as well as included in the table (pg 6).

It also appears that minerals are an identified resources that carries higher risk 'Monitor data on all first-tier suppliers’ use of conflict-affected and high- risk minerals as well as smelters’ use of such minerals in the supply chain' (pg 7). However, as above it doesn't appear to meet the threshold of an explicitly identified risk.

This is indeed a tricky case. Because the company mentions migrant workers and minerals in the section about salient human rights risks, I would argue that it should be counted under this metric.

Workforce: migrant workers / children

Resources: conflict-affected and high- risk minerals