This article examines the legal liability of multinational technology companies toward workers in their global supply chains, with particular focus on Kenya's experience as a critical case study in digital labour exploitation. The paper...
moreThis article examines the legal liability of multinational technology companies toward workers in their global supply chains, with particular focus on Kenya's experience as a critical case study in digital labour exploitation. The paper analyzes the troubling implications of Kenya's Business Laws (Amendment) Bill (Senate Bills No. 51 of 2024), which proposes to shield foreign technology companies from liability for human rights violations committed through their subcontractors, representing a significant regression in corporate accountability.
Using Kenya's emergence as a hub for outsourced digital services—particularly content moderation for major social media platforms—the study explores how the intersection of labour export policies, corporate impunity, and inadequate legal protections creates conditions ripe for worker exploitation. The analysis centers on the ongoing legal battle involving Meta (formerly Facebook) and its subcontractor Sama, where Kenyan content moderators have alleged numerous human rights violations including exposure to disturbing content without psychological support, unsafe working conditions, discriminatory practices, below-standard wages, restrictions on unionization, and trafficking-like conditions.
The paper argues that the proposed Kenyan legislation, designed to exempt foreign technology companies from liability in suits arising from outsourced work, fundamentally contradicts the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. Through detailed examination of the three pillars of the UN framework—the state duty to protect, corporate responsibility to respect, and access to remedy—the analysis demonstrates how the amendment undermines each principle by removing legal avenues for worker redress while failing to ensure corporate human rights due diligence.
Comparative analysis reveals Kenya's approach as regressive compared to global trends toward greater corporate accountability. The study examines progressive frameworks including the EU's Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (2024), the UK's Modern Slavery Act, California's Transparency in Supply Chains Act, and emerging Asia-Pacific and African approaches to corporate responsibility. Case studies of successful litigation against multinational corporations—from Lungowe v Vedanta in the UK to Shell cases in the Netherlands—demonstrate the increasing judicial willingness to hold parent companies accountable for subsidiary violations.
The paper identifies how multinational technology companies employ sophisticated corporate structures to evade liability, including multiple layers of subcontracting, jurisdictional shopping, and contractual liability limitations. These mechanisms create legal distance between ultimate beneficiaries of labour and workers themselves, while the proposed Kenyan legislation would facilitate such evasion by providing a jurisdiction where companies can operate with impunity.
Constitutional analysis reveals that the amendment contradicts Kenya's own legal framework, particularly provisions on access to justice (Article 48), fair labour practices (Article 41), and public participation (Articles 10 & 118). The legislation also conflicts with statutory protections under the Employment Act and Occupational Safety and Health Act, while violating Kenya's international obligations under ILO conventions on decent work and occupational safety.
The study projects profound negative consequences for Kenya's digital work economy, including reduced worker protections through creation of a two-tier system, encouragement of a "race to the bottom" in labour standards, reduced investment in worker welfare, weakened civil society advocacy, and international reputation damage. The paper argues that this approach prioritizes short-term economic gains over fundamental worker rights while being economically short-sighted regarding Kenya's long-term competitiveness.
The paper concludes with comprehensive recommendations spanning immediate actions (removing problematic amendment provisions and strengthening judicial independence), medium-term reforms (developing corporate accountability legislation and enhancing remedial mechanisms), and long-term structural changes (regional harmonization and international cooperation). It emphasizes the role of international pressure through diplomatic engagement, economic leverage, civil society support, and consumer activism in advancing corporate accountability.
The analysis positions Kenya's proposed legislation as both morally questionable and strategically misguided, arguing that genuine corporate accountability requires strong legal frameworks holding all actors responsible regardless of nationality or corporate structure. The paper calls for the international community to prevent Kenya's regression from becoming a global template, instead using this moment to strengthen corporate accountability mechanisms worldwide to ensure technological progress benefits all stakeholders rather than concentrating wealth among the powerful while exploiting vulnerable workers.
Keywords: corporate accountability, human rights, technology companies, digital labour, Kenya, UN Guiding Principles, supply chain liability, content moderation, labour exploitation, multinational corporations