In April 2026, an investor brief published by IndustriALL, based on worker testimony from multiple countries and recounting company failures in Kazakhstan, Mexico, Brazil, Liberia, the USA and across Europe, exposed a stark and consistent gap between ArcelorMittal's policies and practices in protecting workers.

The report highlighted a company-wide pattern of putting short-term financial gain above the safety, rights and futures of its workforce, and includes allegations of labour rights abuse of employees and contract workers across multiple ArcelorMittal operating sites. Specifically: lack of social dialogue and weak engagement of trade unions; an inconsistent approach to occupational safety and health (OSH); massive job losses and offshoring; financialisaton at the expense of investment in an aging physical plant; a retreat from professed decarbonization goals. The briefing contains several allegations of cases which IndustriALL says illustrate the company’s “poor record” in each of these four areas, from around the world.

This includes allegations of low wages, long hours and lack of social protection for workers employed by ArcelorMittal security's contractor SEGAL in Liberia, alongside alleged violations in Kazakhstan, Mexico, Brazil and other locations. The Business and Human Rights Centre invited SEGAL to respond to the allegations of abusive working conditions and violence against peacefully protesting workers; it did not.

The report also highlights that ArcelorMittal has formed a joint venture with Nippon Steel in India (AM/NS), yet this joint venture is not included in its group-wide climate targets. The report emphasises how major restructuring in Europe has led to the relocation of jobs to AM/NS in India, yet the firm has reportedly "failed to negotiate or consult about these changes". The Centre invited Nippon Steel and the AM/NS joint venture to respond to the briefing and, specifically, allegations its business model increases labour rights risks for workers due to an alleged unwillingness to engage with unions; neither company responded.

The report also says the firm's 2024 Plan de Vigilance, published under the French Duty of Vigilance law, does not cover its global supply chain; the report then highlights the legal risk of this by referencing the finding of liability against Yves Rocher for abuses overseas under the Duty of Vigilance law.

The report highlights the company's restructuring in Europe to different approaches taken by the steel firms Voestalpine, SSAB and Salzgitter, which have not undertaken restructuring or not done so to the same scale as ArcelorMittal.

In May 2026, the Business and Human Rights Centre invited ArcelorMittal to respond to the report. Their response is below.