Data Matters: Enhancing Fair Recruitment through Smarter Indicators

At this year’s ILO Global Conference on Fair Recruitment, UNU-MERIT researcher Elaine Lebon-McGregor joined global experts to discuss one of the most pressing challenges facing migrant workers today: the lack of robust data on recruitment fees and related costs.

You recently spoke at the ILO Global Conference on Fair Recruitment. Could you tell us more about the focus of your session and why “Data Matters” is such a critical theme in the context of fair recruitment?

Collecting robust and reliable data on recruitment fees is essential to tackling a growing global concern on forced labour. According to the ILO, an estimated 20 percent of forced labour cases involve situations of debt bandage labour, where individual are  compelled to work against their will to repay debts owed to their employer or recruiter, often as results of exploitative recruitment practices.  . Furthermore, recruitment fees and related costs account for approximately 15 per cent of the illicit annual profits generated from the forced labour of migrant workers – an estimated USD5.6 billion annually. These practices exacerbate inequality and hinders efforts towards achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The adoption of the SDGs and notable the inclusion of recruitment fees in indicator 10.7.1 served as critical moment that generated momentum for the development a methodology for measuring recruitment fees and related costs. ILO has been working closely with the World Bank and National Statistical Offices to develop clear tools for countries to measure recruitment costs. Several pioneering countries are at the forefront of these efforts with some such as such as Bangladesh, Cambodia, the Philippines, Vietnam, Maldives, Nepal officially reporting data on recruitment fees, and other countries such as Ghana, Korea, Morocco, Indonesia, piloting the approach. While these efforts are encouraging, ultimately, availability of good data remains limited. The focus of the session was therefore on what steps could be taken to mainstream this indicator to ensure that recruitment fees – a major cause of forced labour – can be responded to adequately. 

Much of the discussion centred around SDG Indicator 10.7.1, which tracks recruitment costs for migrant workers. What are the main challenges countries face in collecting this type of data, and why is global progress still limited?

SDG Indicator 10.7.1 measures the “recruitment cost borne by employees as a proportion of monthly income earned in country of destination”. The ILO and the World Bank are co–custodians of this indicator, which has been classified as a Tier 2 indicator since 2019. The move of indicator 10.7.1. from a Tier 3 to a Tier 2 occurred because of Guidelines produced by the ILO and the World Bank, which were subsequently validated by a consultative process with National Statistical Offices (ILO 2019c), leading to their publication in 2019 .  However, for a number of reasons, collecting these data is challenging.  First, costs are not always incurred through formal channels. Sometimes migrant workers go through multiple intermediaries and incur costs throughout their recruitment process. Some workers may be reluctant to report how much they have paid for fear of repercussions.  Another challenge is the limited implementation of national surveys that adequately cover migrants as part of the target population. This results in the need for significant investments to implement a specialized survey covering migrants. Insufficient political attention results in important gaps in the availability of data on migrant populations, their employment and recruitment and other working conditions. 

As a result of these challenges, only a limited number of countries have reported on SDG 10.7.1. Strengthening data collection requires both technical support and political will.
 

You introduced the idea of a complementary de jure indicator to assess national legal frameworks. What would such an indicator look like, and how could it add value to existing data collection efforts?

While many countries are piloting approaches to gather the data required to measure indicator 10.7.1, a complimentary de jure indicator designed to shed light on the legal and political environment could also be introduced to evaluate the legal frameworks in place to regulate recruitment costs and protect migrant workers from exploitation, to ensure this important issue remains on the agenda. Other comparable indicators also make use of de jure indicators. For example, indicator 8.8.2 looks at the ‘level of national compliance with labor rights (freedom of association and collective bargaining) based on ILO textual sources and national legislation’. It was developed using the Delphi Methodology. 

The ILO adopted the General Principles and Operational Guidelines for Fair Recruitment (GPOG) in 2016, complemented by the Definition of Recruitment Fees and Related Costs (ILO Definition) in 2018, which constitute global reference documents. The definition of recruitment fees and related costs has therefore already been developed through a process of social dialogue. As part of their work on the topic, ILO has conducted two global studies (the second of which I co-authored) to assess the recruitment-related law, policy and practices of 110 countries. The database constructed and updated for these studies could be used to develop a robust, consensus-driven de jure indicator for SDG 10.7.1.

A de jure indicator would assess the extent to which national laws and regulations align with international standards on fair recruitment—for instance, whether they prohibit recruitment fees for workers, regulate private employment agencies, and ensure access to remedies. This type of indicator complements the de facto data collected under SDG 10.7.1 by revealing gaps in legal protection that may not yet be reflected in survey-based data. It also provides a clear, actionable entry point for policy reform, allowing countries to benchmark their frameworks and track legal progress over time.

The second edition of the Global Study on Recruitment Fees and Related Costs, which you co-authored, reviews legislation from 110 countries. What were the most surprising or concerning trends you discovered in this global landscape?

On a positive note, one of the most surprising findings was the number of countries that have developed legislation in this space. However, we also found a high prevalence of legal ambiguity in many countries—laws may prohibit recruitment fees, but not clearly define what constitutes a fee, or they may allow certain “service charges” that in practice are indistinguishable from fees. We also found that while several countries have made significant strides in reforming their legislation, enforcement remains a major gap. In some cases, migrant workers are still being charged high fees despite strong legal prohibitions. This points to the need not only for legal reform, but also for stronger monitoring and enforcement mechanisms, which again points back to the need for robust data on the costs incurred by migrant workers.

Looking ahead, what steps do you believe are most urgent to ensure migrant workers are protected from exploitative recruitment costs—and how can global actors, including the ILO, governments, and researchers, work together to advance this agenda?

Beyond the efforts to improve data on this topic, it is critical to recognise the importance of collaboration of the many stakeholders involved in the recruitment process. National governments hold the primary responsibility for ensuring fair recruitment practices yet cannot do so without the buy-in and cooperation of social partners, international organizations, civil society actors and the private sector. As we also argue in the report: “The changing nature of the labour migration and mobility landscape, the emergence of new migration corridors and sectors of employment for migrant workers, and the recognition that recruitment of workers is a multibillion–dollar business that remains poorly regulated and hardly monitored in many parts of the world highlights the urgent need for coordinated and incisive policy response at all levels. The engagement of international or multinational enterprises operating in countries that lack adequate regulation and implementation regimes is, therefore, vital, as their influence and leverage can be key to promoting and ensuring fair recruitment in these locales. Strengthening the business case for adopting fair recruitment practices is fundamental, as is ensuring that such practices are incorporated throughout the entire supply chain. Ultimately, achieving compliance with fair recruitment practices is a complex task that necessitates ongoing dialogue and cooperation among all stakeholders in both origin and destination countries”.

Read more here.