Blog

  • Employer Liability in China: Subcontracting, Outsourcing, and Affiliations

    Employer Liability in China: Subcontracting, Outsourcing, and Affiliations

    Employer liability in China is expanding as new judicial interpretations clarify the risks associated with subcontracting, outsourcing, and affiliating arrangements involving unlicensed entities. This article unpacks Articles 1 and 2 of the SPC’s Judicial Interpretation II and outlines compliance measures foreign investors should adopt to avoid unexpected liabilities.


    On August 1, 2025, China’s Supreme People’s Court (SPC) released the long-awaited Judicial Interpretation II on the Application of Law in Labor Dispute Cases (Fa Shi [2025] No. 12, hereinafter “Judicial Interpretation II on Labor Disputes” or “Judicial Interpretation II”), along with a set of illustrative cases. Both will take effect on September 1, 2025. This new interpretation reflects the SPC’s ongoing effort to unify judicial standards and provide clearer guidance for handling labor disputes in an increasingly complex employment environment.

    Find Business Support

    Building on our previous article, which provides an overview, this article focuses on Articles 1 and 2 of the Judicial Interpretation II , which clarify employer liability when laborers are employed by unlicensed entities. These provisions assign responsibility to contractors or affiliated entities with legitimate business qualifications, making them accountable as de facto employers for laborers engaged by unlicensed subcontractors or affiliated parties. The Interpretation specifies the circumstances under which laborers can request courts to recognize the contractor or affiliated entity as the responsible employer, covering obligations such as wage payments, work-related injury insurance, and potentially other employment-related liabilities.

    For foreign investors, Articles 1 and 2 highlight the critical importance of due diligence when engaging local subcontractors or partners. Even when laborers are formally employed by a third party, failure to verify that the partner holds proper legal qualifications can expose the foreign enterprise to direct liability for wages, work-related injury insurance, and other employment obligations. These provisions emphasize that robust compliance, contract oversight, and proactive labor management are essential to mitigate legal risk and ensure smooth operations in China.

    Explore vital economic, geographic, and regulatory insights for business investors, managers, or expats to navigate China’s business landscape. Our Online Business Guides offer explainer articles, news, useful tools, and videos from on-the-ground advisors who contribute to the Doing Business in China knowledge.
    Start exploring

    What is stipulated in Articles 1 and 2?

    Article 1: Liability in subcontracting and outsourcing

    Article 1: Where a contractor with legal business qualifications subcontracts or assigns contracted business to an organization or individual without legal business qualifications, and the laborers employed by such organization or individual request confirmation that the contractor shall be the entity bearing the responsibility as the employer, and shall assume responsibilities such as payment of labor remuneration and work-related injury insurance benefits after the determination of work-related injury, the people’s court shall support such claims in accordance with the law.

    Article 1 addresses situations where a contractor with legal business qualifications subcontracts or outsources work to an entity without legal qualifications. In such cases, laborers employed by the unlicensed entity can request the court to recognize the original contractor as their de facto employer. Courts are instructed to uphold these claims, ensuring laborers receive statutory protections, including wages and work-related injury benefits.

    Subcontracting and outsourcing are common in industries such as construction, manufacturing, and professional services. In construction, subcontracting typically involves transferring the entire contracted project to another entity, whereas outsourcing refers to allocating specific portions of work. In manufacturing and professional services, outsourcing is often used for specialized tasks such as data analysis, translation, or component production.

    The Interpretation codifies principles previously reflected in regulations like Article 7 of the 2013 Ministry of Human Resources and Social Security guidelines on work injury insurance. What is new is the explicit judicial endorsement that contractors cannot evade employer responsibility when laborers are employed by unlicensed subcontractors. The Interpretation emphasizes the subcontractor’s “legal business qualification” as the threshold for liability, focusing on formal licensing and registration rather than mere operational activity.

    Article 2: Liability in affiliating arrangements

    Article 2: Where an organization or individual without legal business qualifications operates externally by affiliating with an entity with legal business qualifications, and the laborers employed by such organization or individual request confirmation that the affiliated entity shall be the entity bearing the responsibility as the employer, and shall assume responsibilities such as payment of labor remuneration and work-related injury insurance benefits after the determination of work-related injury, the people’s court shall support such claims in accordance with the law.

    Article 2 addresses cases where unlicensed entities or individuals operate by affiliating with a licensed entity, a practice commonly known as “affiliating” (挂靠). Laborers employed by the unlicensed party can hold the affiliated licensed entity accountable for employer obligations, including wages and work-related injury insurance. Courts are instructed to support these claims, reinforcing the principle that legal qualifications cannot be used as a shield to avoid liability.

    Affiliating arrangements are more common outside construction, occurring in sectors such as transportation, pharmaceuticals, and energy. Typically, an unlicensed individual or entity leverages the credentials of a licensed partner to bid for projects or operate legally. From a liability perspective, Article 2 ensures that the licensed entity cannot escape responsibilities by serving as a front for unlicensed operations.

    Scope and implications of employer responsibility

    Articles 1 and 2 establish that when laborers are hired by unqualified subcontractors or affiliated parties, responsibility may be shifted to the qualified contractor or affiliated enterprise. Specifically, Article 1 covers situations where a qualified contractor subcontracts or re-subcontracts work to an unqualified entity, while Article 2 applies when an unqualified entity operates under the name of a qualified enterprise. In both scenarios, if workers seek confirmation of their rights, such as wages or work-related injury benefits, the courts will hold the qualified enterprise responsible.

    While the term “employer responsibility” is not formally defined in existing laws, it is generally understood to cover protections for laborers who may not have a direct contractual relationship with the responsible entity. The Interpretation explicitly mentions wage payments and work injury insurance, and the addition of “etc.” suggests that other liabilities, such as social security contributions or reimbursement for occupational hazards, may also be included.

    Why is it relevant to foreign investors?

    For foreign-invested enterprises (FIEs), Articles 1 and 2 underscore the importance of carefully managing subcontracting, outsourcing, and affiliating arrangements in China. The rules serve as a reminder that employer responsibility may extend beyond a company’s direct contractual relationships, exposing FIEs to unexpected liabilities if compliance gaps exist in their supply or service chains.

    Key scenarios include:

    • Subcontracting: FIEs frequently subcontract specialized tasks or segments of a project to local firms, particularly in construction, manufacturing, and services. Under the Interpretation, subcontractors must hold valid business qualifications; if they do not, the FIE risks being deemed the responsible employer. This can mean assuming liability for unpaid wages, mandatory social insurance, and work-related injury compensation—obligations that could become significant financial and reputational risks.
    • Outsourcing and indirect subcontracting: Even when FIEs do not directly subcontract, indirect arrangements can still create exposure. For example, a foreign apparel brand may contract production to a qualified local factory, which then outsources portions of the order to smaller, unlicensed workshops. If labor disputes emerge at those workshops, courts may trace responsibility back through the chain and assign liability to the original contracting enterprise, including the FIE. This reflects the court’s intention to protect workers regardless of contractual distance.
    • Affiliating arrangements: Although less common, FIEs may become entangled in affiliating practices, where an unqualified party “borrows” the name or qualifications of a licensed enterprise to bid for or undertake projects. An FIE with proper qualifications might unknowingly—or negligently—enable such an arrangement through a local partner. If workers are employed under this setup, courts may hold the FIE responsible for employer obligations. This risk is particularly acute in industries like construction and engineering, where affiliating practices have historically been more prevalent.

    In short, the Interpretation raises the compliance bar for FIEs operating in China. It requires not only verifying counterparties’ qualifications but also exercising continuous oversight across subcontracting and outsourcing chains. Ignorance of lower-tier practices may no longer shield foreign investors from liability, making stronger due diligence, contractual safeguards, and compliance monitoring essential parts of risk management.

    Practical compliance measures

    Given these risks, FIEs should implement proactive compliance strategies that balance operational efficiency with legal risk management. Key measures include:

    • Qualification verification: Conduct thorough due diligence on subcontractors, assignees, and affiliated entities to confirm that they hold the necessary legal and business qualifications. This is the first line of defense against being held liable for unqualified partners.
    • Contractual safeguards: Strengthen contracts by clearly defining the scope of work, responsibilities, and compliance obligations. Agreements should expressly prohibit illegal subcontracting, outsourcing, or affiliating arrangements and include indemnification clauses to protect the FIE in case of labor disputes.
    • Labor oversight: Go beyond contractual terms by monitoring subcontractors’ labor practices, such as ensuring workers are formally employed, wages are paid on time, and social insurance contributions are made in full. Courts are increasingly willing to hold principals accountable if oversight is lacking.
    • Insurance coverage: Obtain comprehensive employer liability and project-specific insurance policies. These can provide an additional layer of protection against unforeseen labor claims and financial exposure.
    • Continuous legal review: Regularly update compliance programs and internal protocols to reflect the latest judicial interpretations and sector-specific regulations, ensuring that the company’s risk management remains aligned with evolving enforcement trends.

    Key takeaways

    Find Business Support

    Articles 1 and 2 of the Judicial Interpretation II provide clarity and legal certainty regarding employer liability in subcontracting, outsourcing, and affiliating arrangements. For courts, the Interpretation offers clear guidance to hold legally qualified contractors and affiliated entities accountable for laborers employed by unlicensed parties. For foreign enterprises operating in China, these provisions underscore the importance of rigorous partner vetting, structured contracts, and proactive labor management.

    Ultimately, the Interpretation strengthens labor protections while emphasizing accountability among legally recognized entities. For HR and legal practitioners, it signals a need for tighter oversight of partnerships, subcontracting arrangements, and any affiliation with unlicensed operators. Adopting robust compliance practices not only mitigates legal risks but also reinforces corporate social responsibility commitments, ensuring that labor rights are safeguarded even when operations involve complex subcontracting or affiliation chains.

    About Us

    China Briefing is one of five regional Asia Briefing publications, supported by Dezan Shira & Associates. For a complimentary subscription to China Briefing’s content products, please click here.

    Dezan Shira & Associates assists foreign investors into China and has done so since 1992 through offices in Beijing, Tianjin, Dalian, Qingdao, Shanghai, Hangzhou, Ningbo, Suzhou, Guangzhou, Haikou, Zhongshan, Shenzhen, and Hong Kong. We also have offices in Vietnam, Indonesia, Singapore, United States, Germany, Italy, India, and Dubai (UAE) and partner firms assisting foreign investors in The Philippines, Malaysia, Thailand, Bangladesh, and Australia. For assistance in China, please contact the firm at china@dezshira.com or visit our website at www.dezshira.com.

     

    Continue Reading

  • Full schedule, all stage-by-stage results, and general classification standings

    Full schedule, all stage-by-stage results, and general classification standings

    The 80th edition of the men’s Vuelta a España road cycling stage race begins on 23 August 2025 in Turin, Italy.

    This year’s Spanish Grand Tour, the third and final men’s Grand Tour of the season, will run through 14 September 2025, when it concludes with its traditional finish in the Spanish capital Madrid.

    The 21 stages of this year’s race cross four different countries, beginning in Italy and heading into France before reaching Spain. Two further stages cross through Andorra.

    The total race distance is 3151km (1958 miles), and covers nearly 53,000m (over 173,000ft) of climbing across the three weeks of the race.

    Last year’s champion, Primož Roglič, is not expected to ride the Vuelta this year. However, the 2023 winner Sepp Kuss is due to compete, as is two-time Tour de France winner Jonas Vingegaard.

    Find below the result from every stage, the overall classification, and a list of stages.

    Continue Reading

  • Sharjeel Khan’s heroics guide Kingsmen past NT Strike in Top End T20 Series – Cricket

    Sharjeel Khan’s heroics guide Kingsmen past NT Strike in Top End T20 Series – Cricket

    Chicago Kingsmen opener Sharjeel Khan plays a shot during the Top End T20 match against Northern Territory Strike at Gardens Oval in Darwin, Australia, on August 21, 2025. – Instagram/kingsmencricketusa

    DARWIN: Chicago Kingsmen, powered by a blistering knock from opening batter Sharjeel Khan, cruised to a seven-wicket victory over Northern Territory Strike in the Top End T20 Series at the Gardens Oval on Thursday.

    Batting first, NT Strike were restricted to 131-8 in their 20 overs. Middle-order batter Tom Andrews top-scored with 48 off 38 deliveries, laced with four boundaries and a six. 

    Opener Connor Carroll chipped in with 34 off 26 balls, including one four and three sixes, but the rest of the batting order failed to make significant contributions.

    For Kingsmen, Asif Mehmood starred with the ball, returning impressive figures of 3-17 from four overs. Hassan Khan and Scott Kuggeleijn supported well with two wickets apiece.

    In reply, Kingsmen’s opening pair of Sharjeel Khan and Shayan Jahangir gave their side a flying start with a 108-run partnership. Jahangir was run out after a rapid 47 off just 23 deliveries, hitting four fours and four sixes. 

    Sharjeel continued his dominance, reaching a well-crafted half-century before falling for 60 off 42 balls, which included five fours and three sixes.

    Syed Saad Ali managed 10 off 12 before being dismissed by Hamish Martin, leaving Kingsmen at 130-3 in the 14th over. 

    However, Asif Mehmood (11*) and Milind Kumar (4*) ensured no further hiccups as Kingsmen chased down the target in just 14.3 overs.

    With this win, Hammad Azam-led Kingsmen maintained their dominance at the top of the points table, having now won five matches in a row. They sit comfortably with 10 points and a strong net run rate of 1.803.

    The Kingsmen will next face Hobart Hurricanes Academy in their final league-stage match on August 23.

    Continue Reading

  • Supreme Court grants bail to PTI founder Imran Khan in May 9 cases – Samaa TV

    1. Supreme Court grants bail to PTI founder Imran Khan in May 9 cases  Samaa TV
    2. SC accepts Imran’s bail pleas in eight May 9 cases  Dawn
    3. Breath of fresh air: PTI hails SC order  The Express Tribune
    4. Pakistan SC grants bail to Imran Khan in May 9 cases, but ex-PM stays in jail  Times of India
    5. Bail doesn’t mean acquittal for Imran Khan in £190m case: Attaullah Tarar  The Nation (Pakistan )

    Continue Reading

  • Pakistan is critical in the fight against Islamic State terrorism

    Pakistan is critical in the fight against Islamic State terrorism

    For most of the past 25 years, “phenomenal” was not a word many Americans used to describe Pakistan’s co-operation on counter-terrorism. Yet that is how General Michael Kurilla, then head of America’s Central Command, characterised it in June. His praise was striking not just because American officials have long accused Pakistan of covertly backing the Afghan Taliban and sheltering Osama bin Laden, who was killed by American special forces in a Pakistani garrison town in 2011. The remark also came seven weeks after India blamed a terrorist attack in Kashmir on Pakistan, which has a long history of sponsoring similar assaults on Indian soil.

    Continue Reading

  • Adin Ross reacts to Drake deleting Kick channel after fallout with Ed Craven

    Adin Ross reacts to Drake deleting Kick channel after fallout with Ed Craven

    Rapper Aubrey “Drake” Graham has reportedly deleted his Kick channel following a fallout with the streaming platform’s co-owner, Ed Craven. The news surfaced after streamer Adin Ross appeared shocked when he realized Drake’s account was no longer active.

    In a video shared by Akademiks TV on X, Ross reacted live to the discovery, saying, “Like, what now dude?” After searching Drake’s name on the platform, he was met with a “404 Error” page, which confirmed the account’s deletion. Ross went on to criticize Craven, saying, “Eddie been dissing the owls. F*** Eddie. F*** this goof.”

    According to Dexerto, Drake’s decision stemmed from frustrations over restrictions placed on his account. The Canadian rapper reportedly claimed he was blocked from sharing affiliate links and suggested that streamers were being mistreated on the platform. Shortly before his channel was removed, Drake also shared several posts aimed at Craven.

    Streamer Trainwreck, who has been closely associated with Kick, weighed in on the fallout. He said he gave his all to the platform, even risking his health and safety, but acknowledged that internal conflicts and poor management had long been issues.

    Ross has previously spoken positively about Drake and their collaborations on Kick. In an appearance on the Full Send podcast earlier this year, he described Drake as “the most normal, most famous person you’ll ever meet” and said the two spoke almost daily. Ross praised the rapper’s kindness, professionalism, and dedication to his people, adding that he deeply respected him.

    Drake’s departure from Kick marks a pivotal moment for the platform. His involvement had helped draw major attention and credibility, and his exit could significantly affect its standing in the streaming landscape.

    Continue Reading

  • Japanese Spotted Fever in an Elderly Patient Without Eschar and Negative Acute-Phase Serology: Diagnostic Value of Clinical Assessment and Histopathology

    Japanese Spotted Fever in an Elderly Patient Without Eschar and Negative Acute-Phase Serology: Diagnostic Value of Clinical Assessment and Histopathology


    Continue Reading

  • Ancient solar system crash may explain Bennu and Ryugu’s origin

    Ancient solar system crash may explain Bennu and Ryugu’s origin

    A Southwest Research Institute (SwRI) review of data collected from near-Earth asteroids Bennu and Ryugu supports the hypothesis that they were originally part of the Polana collisional family in the main asteroid belt between the orbits of Mars and Jupiter.

    The study compared spectroscopy data from Polana with spacecraft and laboratory data from Bennu and Ryugu samples, discovering similarities in their near-infrared spectrum sufficient to support the theory that they originate from the same parent asteroid.

    “Very early in the formation of the solar system, we believe large asteroids collided and broke into pieces to form an ‘asteroid family’ with Polana as the largest remaining body,” said SwRI’s Dr. Anicia Arredondo, lead author of the study. “Theories suggest that remnants of that collision not only created Polana, but also Bennu and Ryugu as well. To test that theory, we started looking at spectra of all three bodies and comparing them to one another.”

    Arredondo and her team applied for time on the James Webb Space Telescope to observe Polana using two different spectral instruments focusing on the near-infrared and mid-infrared wavelengths. She then compared that data with the spectral data from physical samples of Ryugu and Bennu collected by two different space missions. The Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency’s Hayabusa2 spacecraft rendezvoused with Ryugu in 2018 and collected samples returned to Earth in late 2020. NASA’s OSIRIS-REx spacecraft encountered Bennu in 2020 and collected samples returned to Earth in late 2023.

    Bennu and Ryugu are considered near-Earth asteroids because they orbit the Sun within the orbit of Mars; however, they are not considered a danger to Earth, having a closest approach of about 1.9 and 1 million miles, respectively. Both Bennu and Ryugu are relatively small compared to Polana. Bennu is about one third of a mile in diameter, or about the size of the Empire State Building. Ryugu is twice as large, but Polana dwarfs them both, measuring roughly 33 miles wide. Scientists believe Jupiter’s gravity pushed Bennu and Ryugu out of their orbit close to Polana.

    “They are similar enough that we feel confident that all three asteroids could have come from the same parent body,” Arredondo said.

    The team noted that the spectral data from the asteroids had variances and differences, but not enough to disprove the hypothesis that they all share a common origin.

    “Polana, Bennu and Ryugu have all had their own journeys through our solar system since the impact that may have formed them,” said SwRI’s Dr. Tracy Becker, a co-author of the paper. “Bennu and Ryugu are now much closer to the Sun than Polana, so their surfaces may be more affected by solar radiation and solar particles.

    “Likewise, Polana is possibly older than Bennu and Ryugu and thus would have been exposed to micrometeoroid impacts for a longer period,” Becker added. “That could also change aspects of its surface, including its composition.”

    Continue Reading

  • Production in construction down by 0.8% in the euro area and by 0.5% in the EU – Euro indicators

    Production in construction down by 0.8% in the euro area and by 0.5% in the EU – Euro indicators

    Overview

    In June 2025, compared with May 2025, seasonally adjusted production in construction decreased by 0.8% in the euro area and by 0.5% in the EU, according to first estimates from Eurostat, the statistical office of the European Union. In May 2025, production in construction fell by 2.1% in the euro area and by 1.9% in the EU.

    In June 2025, compared with June 2024, production in construction increased by 1.7% the euro area and by 1.9% in the EU.

    Monthly comparison by construction sector and by Member State

    In the euro area in June 2025, compared with May 2025, production in construction

    • decreased by 1.8% for construction of buildings,

    • increased by 0.5% for civil engineering,

    • decreased by 0.2% for specialised construction activities.

    In the EU, production in construction

    • decreased by 1.6% for construction of buildings,

    • decreased by 0.1% for civil engineering,

    • increased by 0.3% for specialised construction activities.

    Among Member States for which data are available, the largest monthly decreases in production in construction were recorded in Spain (-5.6%), Hungary (-5.3%) and Slovenia (-3.7%). The highest increases were observed in Slovakia (+5.3%), Romania (+4.5%) and Poland (+3.2%).

    Annual comparison by construction sector and by Member State

    In the euro area in June 2025, compared with June 2024, production in construction

    • increased by 3.3% for construction of buildings,

    • increased by 2.9% for civil engineering,

    • increased by 0.9% for specialised construction activities.

    In the EU, production in construction

    • increased by 3.9% for construction of buildings,

    • increased by 1.3% for civil engineering,

    • increased by 1.5% for specialised construction activities.

    Among Member States for which data are available, the highest annual increases in production in construction were recorded in Spain (+31.4%), Czechia (+14.0%) and Slovakia (+9.8%). Decreases were observed in France (-5.1%), Austria (-5.0%), Germany (-2.5%) and Sweden (-0.3%).

    Tables

    Production in construction

    % change compared with the previous month*

    Jan-25

    Feb-25

    Mar-25

    Apr-25

    May-25

    Jun-25

    0.7

    -1.2

    0.0

    4.5

    -2.1

    -0.8

    0.5

    -1.7

    0.7

    9.5

    -3.2

    -1.8

    -0.9

    -1.3

    2.6

    -0.4

    -0.5

    0.5

    0.8

    -1.0

    0.2

    0.5

    -0.9

    -0.2

    0.4

    -1.1

    -0.1

    3.8

    -1.9

    -0.5

    1.2

    -1.4

    0.2

    7.6

    -2.3

    -1.6

    -2.8

    -0.5

    1.4

    0.0

    -0.3

    -0.1

    0.8

    -0.9

    0.2

    0.4

    -0.9

    0.3

    Production in construction

    % change compared with the previous month*

    Jan-25

    Feb-25

    Mar-25

    Apr-25

    May-25

    Jun-25

    0.7

    -1.2

    0.0

    4.5

    -2.1

    -0.8

    0.4

    -1.1

    -0.1

    3.8

    -1.9

    -0.5

    1.6

    -1.3

    -0.9

    1.6

    -2.3

    0.5

    2.2

    -0.2

    1.8

    -0.7

    -1.6

    -0.2

    -1.6

    0.1

    3.6

    -4.8

    2.0

    2.6

    -0.6

    3.3

    -0.5

    0.2

    0.4

    -0.1

    2.6

    -3.7

    1.2

    0.0

    -3.0

    0.7

    :

    :

    :

    :

    :

    :

    c

    c

    c

    c

    c

    c

    :

    :

    :

    :

    :

    :

    -1.6

    2.1

    -0.8

    41.4

    -7.0

    -5.6

    -4.0

    0.4

    -0.4

    -0.5

    -0.4

    -0.4

    2.6

    -1.7

    0.2

    1.8

    0.1

    :

    4.7

    -1.1

    -0.6

    c

    c

    c

    :

    :

    :

    :

    :

    :

    :

    :

    :

    :

    :

    :

    :

    :

    :

    :

    :

    :

    -1.2

    0.3

    -1.0

    0.5

    -5.3

    :

    2.6

    -1.5

    -0.4

    7.9

    1.0

    -5.3

    :

    :

    :

    :

    :

    :

    1.5

    -1.4

    -1.4

    2.3

    -1.8

    -0.7

    0.5

    -1.8

    1.2

    -1.8

    -0.3

    -2.1

    -0.6

    -3.2

    -3.9

    -0.9

    0.2

    3.2

    -3.6

    3.5

    -5.0

    4.0

    -0.2

    1.3

    0.0

    -5.2

    2.2

    0.4

    -0.2

    4.5

    -2.2

    -4.3

    -3.9

    6.7

    5.5

    -3.7

    0.6

    -0.2

    -1.3

    -0.1

    0.5

    5.3

    0.6

    -0.3

    1.4

    -0.8

    1.3

    -2.1

    -3.6

    0.7

    1.1

    -0.4

    -0.3

    -0.1

    2.2

    -0.7

    0.4

    0.1

    -0.2

    -0.4

    Production in construction

    % change compared with the same month of the previous year*

    Jan-25

    Feb-25

    Mar-25

    Apr-25

    May-25

    Jun-25

    0.4

    -0.4

    -1.2

    4.7

    3.6

    1.7

    0.7

    -2.5

    -2.3

    7.5

    7.1

    3.3

    1.9

    -3.6

    0.1

    3.2

    3.6

    2.9

    0.7

    -0.5

    0.9

    2.1

    1.9

    0.9

    0.8

    -0.1

    -0.8

    4.0

    3.3

    1.9

    0.7

    -2.4

    -1.2

    5.6

    5.8

    3.9

    1.8

    -2.5

    0.3

    2.4

    3.9

    1.3

    0.7

    -0.3

    1.0

    2.3

    1.8

    1.5

    Production in construction

    % change compared with the same month of the previous year*

    Jan-25

    Feb-25

    Mar-25

    Apr-25

    May-25

    Jun-25

    0.4

    -0.4

    -1.2

    4.7

    3.6

    1.7

    0.8

    -0.1

    -0.8

    4.0

    3.3

    1.9

    8.5

    -2.8

    -6.6

    6.1

    -0.9

    1.1

    8.1

    7.0

    8.9

    6.9

    3.6

    4.3

    6.9

    0.6

    12.6

    1.9

    11.6

    14.0

    0.0

    2.8

    1.8

    2.5

    3.0

    1.9

    3.9

    -7.2

    -3.7

    -1.1

    -2.5

    -2.5

    :

    :

    :

    :

    :

    :

    c

    c

    c

    c

    c

    c

    :

    :

    :

    :

    :

    :

    -2.5

    10.1

    -3.0

    47.2

    45.0

    31.4

    -7.1

    -2.5

    -4.2

    -3.6

    -3.3

    -5.1

    13.0

    8.9

    7.6

    10.0

    8.4

    :

    2.3

    3.6

    3.8

    c

    c

    c

    :

    :

    :

    :

    :

    :

    :

    :

    :

    :

    :

    :

    :

    :

    :

    :

    :

    :

    8.8

    1.1

    -0.3

    0.7

    -5.9

    :

    -8.6

    -3.4

    -4.3

    3.1

    8.0

    0.9

    :

    :

    :

    :

    :

    :

    5.4

    0.6

    -1.0

    2.2

    -0.2

    0.7

    5.7

    0.1

    3.5

    -2.1

    -1.1

    -5.0

    6.3

    0.4

    -1.0

    -4.3

    -4.8

    2.2

    -0.8

    3.9

    0.4

    0.7

    5.5

    1.8

    36.0

    7.2

    2.6

    -2.6

    1.8

    7.1

    1.7

    -13.1

    -12.9

    -2.5

    3.7

    9.3

    7.1

    1.2

    5.9

    -2.2

    1.0

    9.8

    7.1

    5.4

    8.4

    5.8

    5.3

    1.5

    -4.4

    -0.7

    3.1

    1.0

    1.2

    -0.3

    -2.6

    -3.6

    -2.4

    -2.3

    -2.0

    -2.1

    Monthly indices for production in construction,

    calendar and seasonally adjusted

    (base year 2021)

    Jan-25

    Feb-25

    Mar-25

    Apr-25

    May-25

    Jun-25

    104.1

    102.9

    102.9

    107.5

    105.2

    104.4

    104.0

    102.9

    102.8

    106.7

    104.7

    104.2

    102.6

    101.3

    100.4

    102.0

    99.7

    100.2

    108.5

    108.3

    110.3

    109.5

    107.8

    107.6

    104.9

    105.0

    108.8

    103.6

    105.7

    108.5

    104.5

    108.0

    107.5

    107.7

    108.1

    108.0

    94.3

    90.8

    91.9

    91.9

    89.1

    89.7

    :

    :

    :

    :

    :

    :

    c

    c

    c

    c

    c

    c

    :

    :

    :

    :

    :

    :

    100.1

    102.2

    101.4

    143.4

    133.4

    125.9

    92.1

    92.5

    92.1

    91.6

    91.2

    90.8

    133.0

    130.8

    131.0

    133.3

    133.4

    :

    141.8

    140.2

    139.4

    c

    c

    c

    :

    :

    :

    :

    :

    :

    :

    :

    :

    :

    :

    :

    :

    :

    :

    :

    :

    :

    95.9

    96.2

    95.2

    95.7

    90.6

    :

    97.1

    95.6

    95.2

    102.7

    103.7

    98.2

    :

    :

    :

    :

    :

    :

    108.9

    107.4

    105.9

    108.3

    106.4

    105.7

    100.0

    98.2

    99.4

    97.6

    97.3

    95.3

    111.1

    107.6

    103.4

    102.5

    102.7

    106.0

    109.9

    113.8

    108.1

    112.4

    112.2

    113.7

    131.2

    124.4

    127.1

    127.6

    127.4

    133.1

    134.6

    128.8

    123.8

    132.1

    139.3

    134.2

    81.9

    81.7

    80.6

    80.5

    80.9

    85.2

    93.2

    92.9

    94.2

    93.4

    94.6

    92.6

    87.5

    88.1

    89.1

    88.7

    88.4

    88.3

    99.2

    98.5

    98.9

    99.0

    98.8

    98.4

    Monthly indices for production in construction, calendar adjusted

    (base year 2021)

    Jan-25

    Feb-25

    Mar-25

    Apr-25

    May-25

    Jun-25

    89.7

    97.7

    108.0

    106.7

    108.9

    110.3

    86.9

    94.9

    105.9

    104.8

    107.7

    110.3

    98.2

    104.4

    112.6

    105.5

    100.4

    113.1

    106.6

    103.9

    115.1

    108.6

    105.3

    112.2

    58.6

    67.1

    93.6

    96.9

    110.1

    122.0

    99.7

    105.8

    112.2

    103.1

    108.8

    110.3

    64.7

    75.1

    94.5

    91.8

    89.6

    94.0

    :

    :

    :

    :

    :

    :

    c

    c

    c

    c

    c

    c

    :

    :

    :

    :

    :

    :

    99.7

    98.5

    98.4

    130.1

    135.3

    121.0

    88.5

    95.6

    98.1

    93.6

    95.6

    99.6

    128.2

    132.6

    142.4

    137.2

    138.0

    :

    130.6

    139.2

    150.7

    c

    c

    c

    :

    :

    :

    :

    :

    :

    :

    :

    :

    :

    :

    :

    :

    :

    :

    :

    :

    :

    85.0

    98.4

    105.0

    102.8

    89.0

    :

    58.5

    65.4

    91.3

    88.8

    101.6

    103.7

    :

    :

    :

    :

    :

    :

    111.4

    121.0

    123.9

    116.4

    114.6

    119.7

    61.0

    72.5

    96.3

    92.2

    94.7

    100.0

    67.0

    72.4

    86.9

    89.3

    96.6

    109.4

    109.5

    111.5

    114.0

    111.3

    116.2

    112.4

    67.6

    80.7

    113.0

    114.6

    121.3

    139.4

    100.9

    107.1

    119.1

    123.7

    145.5

    139.3

    53.0

    60.9

    66.6

    71.4

    80.2

    90.8

    66.6

    72.3

    84.8

    83.3

    99.1

    99.6

    65.6

    76.2

    86.3

    87.5

    90.8

    98.2

    105.0

    92.5

    100.3

    90.7

    95.0

    104.9

    Notes for users

    Revisions and timetable

    Data of previous months have been revised compared with those issued in News Release of 18 July 2025. The monthly percentage change for May 2025 has been revised from -1.7% to -2.1% in the euro area and from -1.3% to -1.9% in the EU. The annual percentage change has been revised from +2.9% to +3.6% in the euro area and from +2.7% to +3.3% in the EU.

    Methods and definitions

    The index of production in construction approximates the evolution of the volume of production within the sector, broken down into construction of buildings, civil engineering and specialised construction activities according to NACE Rev. 2 activity classification.

    Seasonally adjusted euro area and EU series are calculated by aggregating the seasonally adjusted national data. Eurostat carries out the seasonal adjustment of the data for those countries that do not adjust their data for seasonal effects.

    The monthly index as presented in this News Release is calculated only on the basis of the data of those countries reporting monthly data. Missing observations from Member States for recent months are estimated for the calculation of the euro area and the EU aggregates.

    Geographical information

    The euro area (EA20) includes Belgium, Germany, Estonia, Ireland, Greece, Spain, France, Croatia, Italy, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Austria, Portugal, Slovenia, Slovakia and Finland.

    The European Union (EU27) includes Belgium, Bulgaria, Czechia, Denmark, Germany, Estonia, Ireland, Greece, Spain, France, Croatia, Italy, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Hungary, Malta, the Netherlands, Austria, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia, Slovakia, Finland and Sweden.

    Estonia, Greece, Croatia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg and Malta are not required to supply monthly data within 1 month and 15 days after the end of the reference month under Regulation (EU) 2019/2152.

    For more information

    Continue Reading

  • Retrial in Harvey Weinstein case highlights accountability and inequality gap

    Retrial in Harvey Weinstein case highlights accountability and inequality gap

    Ruth GreenWednesday 20 August 2025

    The retrial of Harvey Weinstein in New York, which ended in June after the judge declared a mistrial, has highlighted the power imbalance in many sexual harassment and misconduct cases.

    During the retrial, the Hollywood producer was found guilty on one count of criminal sexual assault but not guilty on a separate sexual assault charge. A verdict on a third charge – rape – was due to be returned later in the week, but the mistrial was declared after the jury foreman refused to continue deliberations, saying he felt bullied by another juror. Weinstein pled not guilty to the charge of rape. It’s now widely expected that he’ll face a third trial. 

    Weinstein was originally sentenced in New York in 2020 to 23 years in prison for rape and sexual assault. However, in spring 2024 the Appeals Court ruled that he didn’t receive a fair trial. It said the judge should not have allowed prosecutors to call witnesses during the trial to testify about allegations relating to prior acts that weren’t part of that case.

    The 2025 retrial included charges from two claimants who had already brought allegations against Weinstein in 2020, but also a new charge filed by a different accuser in September 2024, which didn’t form part of the original trial. 

    There is often a power dynamic involved in these abuse cases and often a major inequality of wealth

    Mark Stephens CBE


    Co-Chair, IBA Human Rights Institute

    Weinstein was found guilty of rape in a separate trial in California in 2022 and sentenced to 16 years in prison. He is currently being held in custody on ill-health grounds and is receiving medical treatment in New York’s Rikers Island jail complex. His legal team have appealed in the case.

    Zelda Perkins, Weinstein’s former assistant, told Global Insight that the case in New York again underscores how money and power can be used to exploit the legal system. ‘It’s a perfect illustration of where the law is being undermined,’ she says. ‘I know lots of lawyers would disagree and say it shows exactly how great the law is because he’s being given this opportunity to prove his innocence. The reality is the reason he has the ability to do this is because of money and power.’

    Weinstein’s legal team declined Global Insight’s requests for comment.

    Weinstein’s retrial took place in what’s becoming a ‘year of reckoning’ for the US entertainment industry in the courtroom. In July, the jury in the trial of musician and producer Sean ‘Diddy’ Combs delivered a mixed verdict, finding him guilty of transportation to engage in prostitution, but acquitting him of the most serious charges of racketeering conspiracy and sex trafficking. The legal team representing Combs declared the verdict a ‘victory of all victories’.

    Luz Nagle, former Co-Chair of the IBA Crimes Against Women Subcommittee, says this latest procedural setback in the Weinstein trial is an indictment of the legal system’s ability to hold sexual predators to account. ‘There was a lot of push – a lot of money spent – to bring the case back to trial,’ says Nagle. ‘With Weinstein a lot of people are also calling this a “win” [for Weinstein and his legal team] and the victims have been re-victimised.’

    Mark Stephens CBE, Co-Chair of the IBA’s Human Rights Institute, agrees that the Weinstein case reflects the power imbalance that persists in many sexual harassment and misconduct cases, particularly where Hollywood’s deep pockets are concerned. ‘There is often a power dynamic involved in these abuse cases and often a major inequality of wealth,’ he says. 

    While Stephens, a media law partner at Howard Kennedy, says victims are typically looking to escape the environment in which the abuse took place and gain just enough money to tide them over, the reality is rather different for their alleged abusers. ‘What people who have been survivors are looking for is economic security,’ he says, ‘but the [abusers] will pay almost any price to maintain the fiction of their good reputation. They can afford law firms and lawyers. The individuals often cannot and that leads to an inequality of bargaining power.’

    In the most recent trial, Weinstein’s legal team included an ‘A-list’ cast of lawyers, such as Arthur Aidala, who has huge clout in the entertainment industry, and Jennifer Bonjean, who spearheaded efforts to overturn Bill Cosby’s sexual assault conviction in 2021. 

    Nagle says the setback in the Weinstein trial also comes amidst growing pushback in the US against the #MeToo movement, which was triggered by revelations about sexual misconduct allegations against Weinstein by Perkins and others in 2017. She says this has undoubtedly made the task of finding an impartial jury increasingly challenging and may have been a factor in why the jurors in the retrial failed to come to verdict on the third charge. 

    ‘I see this Weinstein fiasco as part of this phenomenon that we have regressed as a society,’ she says. ‘We keep hearing these views that women should complain immediately’, if they experience or see abuse, she says, and that those who stand as witnesses in trials should have seen the misconduct for themselves, ‘but sexual assault is something that very often takes place behind closed doors.’

    Image credit: Roy Grogan/AdobeStock.com

    Continue Reading