A/HRC/13/33 Conditions of Employment of Plantation Workers. States face two major and interrelated challenges in the implementation of these instruments. 1. Guaranteeing the right to a living wage 14. As companies in the agribusiness sector increasingly buy from different suppliers across different regions, competition increases between suppliers, and there is a risk of regulatory competition between the countries that host them. As a result, various forms of abuse in the payment of wages could remain unpunished. Such abuses include the nonpayment or deferred payment of wages; the exclusion of agricultural workers from national legislation on the minimum wage; non-respect of periodic readjustment of minimum wage rates; the lack of adequate sanctions to deter abuse of the minimum wage system, where it exists; and the lack of statistics and data on workers covered by minimum wages in this sector. 15. It is the duty of the State to ensure that a minimum wage is set in legislation, and that compliance with this requirement is adequately monitored. That minimum wage should be, at least, a “living wage”, that “provides an income allowing workers to support themselves and their families”, as required under articles 6 and 7 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.22 Work could be launched on the design of a universally agreed-upon methodology to define a living wage, expressed in terms of the hourly wage rate a full-time worker should earn.23 No such definition currently exists. 16. A methodology to define the living wage at national level should be based on a number of common principles. It should: (a) ensure that all members of the family have permanent access to quantitatively and qualitatively adequate and sufficient food, that is in conformity with the cultural traditions of the family concerned, without having to sacrifice other basic human rights, such as the right to education or to housing;24 (b) be transparent and adaptable to the evolution of the cost of living, including the evolution of the price of the basic food basket; (c) allow for a calculation based on easily accessible data; (d) take into account specific needs, for example the costs of transportation for those living away from the place of work, or the costs of taking care of members of the family unable to provide for themselves; (e) build on, and be consistent with, ILO Conventions No. 99 and No. 131 (1970) on Minimum Wage Fixing, with Special Reference to Developing Countries, particularly as regards the requirement that the minimum wage should be fixed taking into consideration, inter alia, “the needs of workers and their families, taking into account the general level of wages in the country, the cost of living, social security benefits, and the relative living standards of other social groups”;25 and (f) include an element of progressivity, with a view to reducing inequalities in incomes. 17. A methodology based on such principles would take into account the characteristics of each country and the significant differences of the cost of living across different 22 23 24 25 GE.09-17776 Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, general comment No. 18 (2005) on the right to work (art. 6), para. 7. The Ethical Trading Initiative Base Code refers to a “living wage” as one that is “enough to meet basic needs and to provide some discretionary income” (art. 5.1). The Global Social Compliance Programme reference code states that “Compensation shall meet basic needs and provide some discretionary income for workers and their families” (6.3). For an attempt, see Michael J. Zimmer, “Decent Work with a Living Wage”, Seton Hall Public Law Research Paper No. 1072083, available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1072083. This is in line with general comment No. 12 (1999) on the right to adequate food (art. 11) of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, as well as with the requirement of the interdependency and indivisibility of all human rights. ILO Convention No. 131, art. 3 (a). 7