To build up the Accord on fire and building safety in Bangladesh and to mobilise an important group of leading global garment retailers to participate in the work is a great achievement. Many people, organisations and companies have worked hard on this historical project. Still, without the engament and skills of IndustriALL General Secretary Jyrki Raina and his team this would not have come about. Well done. Now the work will begin on translating the Accord to real and concrete action. This will not be an easy task, but the solid commitment of this broad alliance will surely help. The very recent interview in Financial Times with H&M CEO Karl-Johan Persson should help set the tone for this cooperation between parties that have often been and still often are engaged in mutual differences and conflicts on many other issues. This should not be allowed to weaken the joint efforts for the Bangladeshi workers. It is of course regrettable that world’s largest retailer Wal-Mart did not join the Bangladesh building and fire safety Accord, nor did most other US retailers, stating that they cannot accept the complaints resolution clause because they are afraid of getting drawn into court processes with stakeholders in the litigation-happy US. This may be so, or not, but I would believe that on this particular issue that the Accord deals with, the probability of such conflicts arising would be very small. Nobody has an interest to detract from the real job that has to be done, and if someone would, I am convinced that other partners would not accept that. Still, this should not lead to giving up – the world’s largest retailer itself declares that they are prepared to use the 45 day period which is foreseen in the Accord to try find solutions. I hope that a solution can be found through serious and concrete discussions. It is important to note that Wal-Mart’s statement is very much different from what the US retailer association said, which was outright negative, hardly hid their aversion against working with unions, and showed that the politicians of that organisation have not understood what is at issue. There is a job to do now, and focus should be on that. A good basis for discussions with Wal-Mart should be their public commitment to get 100 per cent their own supplier base in order through fire safety controls within six months, and their commitment to immediately go public about any factory where dangerous conditions are found. There is surely still a credibility issue, but this new announcement and the concrete follow up on the ground in Bangladesh should remove a lot of the uncertainties. With its huge resources, Wal-Mart would be an important partner in or at least to the Alliance, pulling with it other US retailers as well. If Wal-Mart would put its weight behind the proposal by the H&M CEO Karl-Johan Persson to make sure that minimum wages in Bangladesh would be raised and remain at decent levels, it would be really important. I hope that this is now a window of opportunity that will be used by all those involved, making this historical initiative work.
GSCP India Workshop on Capacity Building shows importance of joining buyers, suppliers and stakeholders in work for human rights and decent labour conditions
Lack of knowledge and skills is a major reason for many working life problems, also in global supply chains. It is clearly not the only reason, but perhaps more common and important than we often think. All of us who have concrete experience from labour relations know that adding to knowledge and skills usually has a positive effect on workplace attitudes, which helps to improve labour conditions and raise productivity.
The GSCP Workshop on Capacity Building which started in India today is a good example of how bringing together buying brands and retailers with their suppliers can promote respect for human rights and decent working conditions. There are many stakeholder organisation present as well, who are dedicated to human rights and social justice, including trade union representatives from IndustriALL Global Union.
Everyone may not always agree on how things could best be improved, but there should be a fair consensus about objectives, which invites to dialogue and cooperation.
When also commercial buying conditions take into account social standards, capacity building plays a central role in enabling employers and workers to set things right through mutual respect, dialogue and cooperation.
I participated myself in a regional GSCP country meeting in Shenzhen in China about a year ago, where it was the buyer companies who met to discuss these issues. What struck me as something very positive was the openness that these professional buyers showed to including social considerations in their supplier relations. I am not naive, we are only at a starting point and much will have to happen before the global trade systems support a fair treatment of workers and their families.
Of course I am partial as well. To be member of the GSCP Advisory Board would make no sense unless I supported the aims, objectives and work of this common CSR and environmental standards platform. More than that, I could not have involved myself in this work had it not been for the strong support of commerce trade unions from all over the world, when I was head of UNI Commerce Global Union. The unions understood that to defend and promote their rights, the supply chain workers needed the support of CSR schemes and initiatives. Of course, the final trade union aim is that employers and workers can engage in an organised social dialogue and collective agreement relationship, supported by effective government authorities and a developed labour legislation.
GSCP has now completed its basic toolkit which can be used by companies, CSR initiatives and schemes, and others, to establish and ensure correct human rights and social conditions in supply chains. All this material is freely available on the www.gscpnet.com website, an amazing resource for all those who want to approach these issues in a serious and professional way. They can be used for benchmarking, but also as inspiration and guidance for improvement. Through the GSCP Equivalence Process, companies and others can make sure that their approaches and work is compatible with the highest existing standards.
The GSCP Workshop in India shows the way that companies as well as codes, schemes and initiatives can move forward from social auditing to capacity building, and remediation. GSCP has made a major contribution to driving upward convergence of standards and mutual recognition of social audits. This should now make it possible to direct more attention and resources to where they can really make a difference – at the supplier workplaces. Hopefully the workshop will help to generate both further capacity building and the use of this added capacity for the benefit of supply chain workers who still so often toil under poor conditions.
Social campaigners should take a thinking time-out and seek cooperation with the CSR community instead of conflict
Last week saw two important campaigner statements that were highly distrustful and suspicious about business sector commitments and remarkably negative towards corporate social responsibility programmes and initiatives. Both referred to last year’s devastating factory fires in Pakistan and Bangladesh. The Clean Clothes Campaign CCC came out with a new booklet, and former International Labor Rights Forum ILRF Executive Director Bama Athreya expressed her opinions in a Huffington Post blog article.
Fatal Fashion is a Clean Clothes Campaign CCC publication that has been written together with SOMO, a research institute close to this Netherlands-based organisation. The booklet is not really a research report even if it contains much essential information on the two tragic factory fires and the follow up by buyers and different stakeholders. It is equally much a statement by the authors on how they would like to see the follow up.
It should be no surprise that global buyers are severely criticised in the CCC booklet, and there are surely valid reasons for that. Much of the factual criticism is correct, although a fundamental mistrust against business filters through also when some targeted companies have clearly shown that suppliers and agents have acted in ways which have been both unauthorised and hidden from the buyers.
To lay the blame for the fires on global buyers cannot be correct as the final responsibility is with factory owners and managers, and the government authorities. Another thing is then that the setup of these business relations requires serious attention and probably some very fundamental changes to lower or even remove the risk for a future tragedies like these taking place. It is also fair to ask buyers to show the necessary solidarity by contributing in substantial ways to compensating victims and their families. We know that this has nomally been done although there may be discussion and differing opinions about amounts and modes of support.
As so often is the case, generalisations and conclusions are regrettably drawn with a free hand. Faults and even wrong behaviour in individual cases and by individual companies are turned into sweeping allegations. This moves too much focus to accusations and the many concrete and serious suggestions for improving factory conditions don’t get the attention that they should.
Of course, the global supply chains that provide cheap goods for consumers in developed markets are fundamentally problematic and frequently unfair. There is, however, no rolling back of this international trading, that would not even be the right thing to demand. What we need to work for is that the economic participation of less developed regions and countries comes with a clear and strong dimension of human rights and social well-being.
Much effort has gone into convincing business that this must be a serious concern in all supply chain activities. Social campaigners have been instrumental in bringing about this thinking. Important contributions have been made within many companies themselves, large and small, where ethically motivated managers and workers can take pride in their achievements. What starts to be mainstream thinking among world brands and retailers – with all shortcomings that still exist – has not been there for long.
Initiatives such as Social Accountability International SAI which was founded in 1997 have played an incredibly important role in raising awareness and providing business with the tools to protect and defend human rights and social conditions in their supply chains. This engagement by SAI president Alice Tepper Marlin and the SA8000 people has actually been there much longer, with the Council on Economic Priorities (CEP) founded already in 1969. The tone that some campaigners are using when referring to this leading multistakeholder initiative, where also trade unionists participate, tells more about themselves than about the issues that they want to raise.
No other organisation has addressed the shortcomings of CSR initiatives and supply chain social auditing as seriously as SAI and Social Accountability Accreditation Services SAAS have recently done. To bluntly reject the importance of the changes that are already on their way, without presenting any alternatives, is not a credible approach.
I admit that I am concerned over how the tense labour relations in the United States affect the global scene as well. Bama Athreya, who used to lead the International Labor Rights Forum ILRF, wrote in a Huffington Post blog article last week :
” The numerous private monitoring and certification groups that have crowded this space in recent years need to get out of the way, and recognize that competing for brands’ business in Bangladesh will not help to solve the bigger challenges. They need to cede the space to the US government here. Consumer-facing advocacy groups need to provide consumers with information about which companies are following the leader, and which are refusing to play. “
Although it deals with the aftermath of the Pakistan and Bangladesh fire catastrophes, the pitch of this message cannot be misunderstood. Buying brands and retailers ” that have crowded this space in recent years need to get out of the way ” and make space for the U.S. Government and campaigner organisations to take care of the challenges.
It is interesting to note that neither CCC nor Ms Athreya pay much attention to the role of trade unions, which after all are the only legitimate representatives for workers when it comes to labour relations. If employers are removed from the scene to create space for governments and social campaigners, then also unions will lose an important part of their influence. This is not a new issue, there have always been some tension between advocacy and campaigner organisations, and trade unions, when these NGO’s have been tempted to take on union roles without being accountable to the workers.
There may be domestic reasons for referring to the U.S. Government, and of course it would be very positive if the Obama administration could give active and effective support for improving the factory fire safety situation in these and other countries.
We have good experiences of this from the time when President Bill Clinton’s Secretary of Labor Robert Reich committed the United States Government to helping end child labour in the production of footballs – soccer balls – in Pakistan’s Sialkot. Here it was UNI Global Union who asked for support, preparing for negotiations with the International Football Federation FIFA.
But still, suppliers and their management are the ones who need to make the concrete changes, and usually also change their approach to their workers. Without clear messages and often even pressure from the brands and retailers who buy and bring their products to the markets this will not happen.
Maybe the author is also unaware that brands and retailers are indeed cooperating when it comes to social supply chain conditions. This was among the main reasons for creating the Global Social Compliance Programme GSCP, and we also see it in the preparations for coordinated activities to address these fire safety issues.
Corporate social responsibility schemes and initiatives can never be a substitute for constructive and fair labour relations between employers and workers and their trade unions. Social audits can never play the role of freely negotiated collective agreements and supportive labour legislation, and proper government oversight. In fact, schemes and initiatives should even stronger than now encourage and promote the development of these internationally agreed ways of protecting workers human, economic and social rights.
There are important parts of the world where the employers and workers, for various reasons, have not been able to get together on these issues. Outside involvement – including a strong engagement of buying brands and retailers through their social responsibility approaches – continues to be needed.
Both global and national trade unions could make much more active use of the declared commitment of leading brands and retailers to require their suppliers to respect freedom of association and the right to collective bargaining. After all, these commitments are a result of a longstanding and continuing engagement by trade unionists in developing these codes, standards and activities.
Telling the global buyers that they are not serious and may as well forget codes, initiatives and capacity building activities among their suppliers would be irresponsible. I am sure that at the end of the day, only a small minority of the people engaged in campagn organisations would take this approach. That US-based SAI and its SA8000 Standard are now singled out also by some who continue their engamenet with often less stringent and more business dominated initiatives is surely related to domestic labour relations issues and not so much part of a broader campaign against CSR.
In a world where governments were unable to introduce even a modest social dimension into their world trade agreements it would be mistaken to think that they can now take over the responsibility. They can and even should increase their engagement, also to set a level playing field for business that requires and also allows for responsible behaviour, but voluntary activities will still remain the key element.
Cooperation is indeed necessary to achieve real change for the better. Business must accept to engage with trade unions and social campaigners, and these need to accept a pragmatic cooperation with business even when the situation at home may be difficult or hostile. To make disadvantaged supply chain workers and their families suffer from adversarial labour relations in developed countries is not acceptable.
Coming from the trade union movement myself, I cannot see any logic or benefit in rejecting voluntary commitments by global brands and retailers to contribute to the respect for human rights and decent working conditions in supplier workplaces. Correctly applied this would even help union organising efforts. In developed economies where trade unions are sufficiently strong and well established and where tripartite cooperation brings together governments and social partners, this business driven approach to labour relations is of course not needed and should not be applied.
It does not take long to see that an important aim of the CCC publication is to solicit participation and and funding for their 2011 fire safety project. This initiative which also ILRF and some other North American campaigners are part of and that some key Global Union Federations are supporting has failed to attract enough commitments from buying companies. Only German retailer Tchibo and US garment group PVH have signed the project agreement with these campaigners.
I would hope that some additional buying companies could find it possible to back up the campaigner driven Bangladesh fire safety project, to ensure a broad stakeholder participation and to lay the ground for a constructive cooperation and united front of the global community. It would not be good to allow a competitive situation emerge on the ground.
I cannot see any major differences between the 2011 project developed by social campaigners and the work programme that should soon emerge from the cooperation between buyer brands and retailers. If everyone would take a pragmatic approach to these challenges and lay aside ideological motives or possible second agendas, a broad cooperation should be easy to achieve.
I hope that IndustriALL, the Global Union Federation which represents the workers directly concerned, and which has stepped in forcefully on their behalf, can play a convening role in bringing about this joint action.
After the two devastating garment factory fires in Pakistan and Bangladesh it is clear that much of the immediate focus will be on worker safety, without losing sight of the need for other improvements as well. Many buyers themselves as well as social responsibility initiatives such as WRAP, SAI and BSCI have already stepped up their existing awareness and capacity building activities. Companies such as French Carrefour and Swedish H&M have been among those who have already done much concrete work in this field and whose experiences will surely be very useful to draw on.
Structural changes and improvements must follow as soon as possible to make the physical conditions at workplaces safe. This is one of the most important tasks for the buying brands and retailers that are already working together with GIZ, the German Development Angency, to develop concrete action.
The Clean Clothes Campaign and other involved campaigners should seriously consider whether it would not be useful to work together with buying brands and retailers and seek cooperation rather than conflict. The challenges in Bangladesh and Pakistan are of such a magnitude that only a tripartite cooperation in the countries themselves with concrete and broad support from the outside can make a real difference.
Finally – let us not forget that the national partners in Pakistan and Bangladesh – governments, suppliers, unions and other stakeholders – need to play a leading role in all of this. In Bangladesh, a tripartite cooperation has already been set up. This has to be possible also on the international level.
Spain’s big store retail employers need to bring their labour relations to EU levels and respect freedom of association
Large retailers in Spain should take a look in the mirror, and then start to get their labour relations act together. The recent deal with management controlled ‘trade unions’ makes bad worse for hundreds of thousands of low-paid workers already badly squeezed by the crisis.
When I was head of UNI Commerce Global Union, the labour situation in some of the department store and hypermarket companies in Spain stuck out as something of a sore thumb. Violations of workers rights and disregard for freedom of association were part of the daily lives at many workplaces.
We see the same now when large retailers have signed collective agreements with sweetheart unions to cut wages, extend working hours, and take away other benefits. Once again it is the same employers’ organisation ANGED that is there doing the job for them, influenced by the country’s largest retailer El Corte Ingles, and some others.
Sad, because in supply chain corporate social responsibility this huge department store and hypermarket retailer is one of the most active companies.
To make some of the most disadvantaged workers pay for the country’s crisis economy is highly unfair. Recently we saw reports of huge undeclared payments from large Spanish companies to leaders of the governing Popular Alliance AP party of Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy. It is difficult to accept that at the same time workers at the lowest income levels are squeezed even more by huge and profitable companies.
The two Spanish commerce trade unions FECOHT-CCOO and FECHT-UGT estimate that the agreement signed with FETICO and FASGA could cost some 230,000 workers an average of 10 percent of their incomes. Almost all of them are low-paid and very many on temporary contracts, frequently in part- time jobs.
For many years, I worked with the Spanish unions – and also many constructive European employers – to try to change this situation and to establish normal European labour relations.
At times we made real progress. Still, the results could finally not be sustained, particularly because of the determination of a hard core of them to keep up old bad practices. Politics also played a role. It was not difficult to see the close ties between Spanish management and the party of the conservative right.
Trade unions that re-emerged in the 1970s after decades of harsh repression during the Franco dictatorship had to be stopped, that was the target. In most sectors old organising traditions and the new political environment made this impossible. Not so in retailing which lacked strong union traditions. Here El Corte Ingles and some others moved fast to fill the vacuum left by the Francoist vertical structures, creating new ‘sweetheart ‘unions’. As large foreign retailers began entering later, they were usually pulled into the same fold.
This anomaly still exists in Spain. The two ‘yellow unions’ Fetico and FASGA cooperate openly with management and are often used by the employers as willing tools. All attempts to change this from within have decisively been cut short through management intervention, and independence-minded Fetico leaders have lost their positions. I met some of them during my UNI years, but their plans – however serious they then were – proved to be impossible to realise.
I also visited department stores and hypermarkets during works council elections and could see some of the blatant violations taking place. I saw voters intimidated, candidates put under pressure to sign off, and the polling secret violated.
Twice I witnessed harsh supervisor pressure on workplace candidates, making them break down in tears and remove themselves from the ballots, afraid of losing their jobs. The aim was to disqualify the union list through making the number of candidates fall under set limits.
In a large department store workers had to walk up through a narrow staircase to the polling station, passing groups of young men – reportedly from FASGA – in dark suits standing along the way. Voters had to pick up ballot papers from stacks on a desk where an election board was sitting, different colours for the different union lists. No wonder if many of them chose to pick up only the one with the employer’s favourite colour.
Of course, I met and saw companies and workplaces where there was a reasonably honest competition between the organisations and their candidates, also some where Fetico got the biggest support. So there is no reason that this should not work in Spain as it does in the rest of the EU?
Differences and labour conflicts between employers and trade unions are normal and acceptable, and most countries have clear rules on how to resolve them. Sometimes employers are unreasonable, and at other times trade unions are unrealistic in their demands. This is normal as well, and usually a result will finally be found – perhaps not popular with either party, but they can live with it.
We have to remember that this is not a political organisation game, but about how human beings at workplaces are treated. Pressure and intimidation of workers and workers’ representatives is not only illegal and a violation of International Labour Standards. It is also ethically and morally wrong.
I will not go into the details of the agreement itself. My view is that it is both unwise and unfair to clamp down even harder on those who are already worst hit by Spain’s economic troubles and extreme unemployment. This will not help recovery or promote the social peace and political stability that both Spain and the European Union need.
It is time to reflect and turn around the bad spiral of deteriorating labour relations in this important sector of Spanish retailing. The responsibility for this is now clearly with the employers, both domestic and foreign. They need to take steps to recall their local human resources management and this particular association to order.
Brands and retailers should now disclose concrete measures for Bangladesh and Pakistan fire safety and respond positively to IndustriALL cooperation invite
Where are the real, concrete and visible commitments from brands and retailers to help deal with the factory fire safety problems in Bangladesh, Pakistan and other countries? Promises and declarations have been heard, but we are well into 2013 and now is the time for more concrete information.
A company that has shown how one can move fast also on big issues is world’s largest retailer Wal-Mart. It did not take long for them to change their own supply chain conditions, tightening up controls. Also other steps were announced, including support for factories that need to make changes in their fire safety setup. The rapid reaction raises expectations that we will soon see action on the ground.
To be fair, also some others have told the public on what they have been doing and intend to continue with. These include GAP, unfairly and incorrectly in the teeth of US activists because they have gone their own way instead of giving support to the campaigners and their project. H&M and Carrefour have already done much, training management and workers in hundreds of factories. Inditex is now joining IndustriALL in project cooperation.
Perhaps interestingly, when I was Head of UNI Commerce I did negotiate Global Framework Agreements with all three companies – H&M, Carrefour and Inditex, and have good experiences of the social dialogue and cooperation with all of them.
Of course, we need to see much more than training and awareness raising. Physical factory conditions will need to be considerably improved. There will be big implications all the way up to buying conditions and supply arrangements.
Others have been more quiet about their activities, plans and commitments, to say it mildly.
Still, there is much going on, particularly in the fields of training and awareness raising. Craig Moss of Social Fingerprint just came back from a session in Bangladesh, and we see how WRAP and others have been active as well. But where are the brands and retailers themselves, when it comes to telling about the support for the garment industry in problem countries to ensure wokplace safety?
A particular problem is Pakistan. We cannot allow that the country’s difficult security situation leads to less attention being paid to worker safety and other conditions at supplier sites. Although reliable social audits and certifications may be impossible to continue, solutions have to be found that guarantee decent conditions for working people.
Spain’s Inditex – mother company of Zara and other clothing brands – has joined the garment workers in IndustriALL Global Union in an effort to bring about positive change in Bangladesh. This is a welcome move by a responsible retailer, but we need fast follow up also from others.
When I took the initiative last autumn in both Social Accountability International SAI and the Global Social Compliance Programme GSCP to launch action in Pakistan and Bangladesh, an important objective was to build a large coalition where everyone can participate, both business and stakeholders. IndustriALL’s recent announcement shows a similar aim. This global union’s resolve to lift up also other sub-standard working conditions to levels of human decency should stop nobody from supporting and joining.
I know that many brands and retailers – and CSR schemes and initiatives – are discussing and planning concrete activities right now. It should not be difficult to combine these plans with the IndustriALL approach. Fast action is now needed.
I would like to see talks between these leading and responsible brands and retailers, and IndustriALL, to help find a common effective approach. This large global union federation reaches out in a constructive way and business must respond positively. Other conflicts of interest, which surely will continue, cannot be allowed to hinder strong common measures for the human rights of these vulnerable supply chain workers.
The public needs to know how the international business community and its stakeholders are standing up to their promises. I have worked since many years with large brands and retailers, and often been frustrated by what seems to be almost an obsession by many of them to avoid any kind of publicity.
Social media has changed the world of information and the old approach to be quiet and hope that things go away does not work anymore. If nothing else, companies should look at Wal-Mart’s fast reaction as a good example on how to make sure that information gets out and becomes part of the discussion that goes on.
If also European brands and retailers had been more active and alert, and read the situation correctly, parts of the European Parliament Resolution on Bangladesh Fire Safety could have looked different. Just to mention one example.
The brands and retailers and those who coordinate these fire safety programmes for them have to get their information activities in order. To keep the public informed is an important part of the job. Until now, they are underperforming.
The buying public has the right to know what is being done to help avoid disasters such as those that cost the lives of hundreds of Pakistani and Bangladeshi workers under appalling circumstances.
New kids on the CSR block are popular and interesting – but ILO Conventions remain the core reference for supply chain social responsibility
The UN Guiding Principles for Business and Human Rights is an important and welcome addition to handling supply chain labour relations. Governments and buyers are reminded of their human rights responsibilities.
Not so good are the attempts to market it as the new main reference for supply chain social responsibility. This role will stay with the tripartite International Labour Organisation ILO and its International Labour Conventions.
Professor John Ruggie and his Harvard University based team did a big service for universal human rights when they produced a new social responsibility building block that adds to the UN Global Compact, the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Companies, the ILO Multinationals Guidelines, and other international agreements and recommendations.
The UN Guidelines both support and encourage the business driven and multistakeholder voluntary schemes and initiatives which work for social responsibility in the global supply chains. They call on buyer brands and retailers to take responsibility also for their suppliers’ human rights related action. This can add to the coverage, relevance and credibility of the voluntary initiatives.
The guidelines should encourage also those businesses who are still passive to join one of the many schemes or to launch their own initiatives.
The UN principles have been picked up by the OECD in a recent revision of their guidelines, and will surely find their way also to the ISO 26000 Standard once it will be reviewed.
On the business driven or multi-stakeholder CSR arena at least the Global Social Compliance Programme ( GSCP ) Reference Code and the Social Accountability International ( SAI ) SA8000 Social Standard will soon be up for scheduled updating, and can be expected to pick up some principles and approaches from the UN Guidelines.
These Guidelines that have been endorsed by the UN Human Rights Council in 2011 do not cover all the issues that are important for supply chain workers. The protect, respect, remedy approach focuses on human rights while many essential labour conditions fall outside.
The document recognises freedom of association and the right to collective bargaining, and the other Core Labour Conventions, but does not really address worker empowerment and involvement. Here, the core ILO Conventions and Recommendations give more concrete guidance – and rules.
In no way does this lower the value of the UN Guidelines. They are an important tool for promoting human rights, both at work and in other areas where businesses have an impact on peoples’ lives. Demanding due diligence from brands and retailers in their global supply chains brings a new dimension to what has been driven by activist pressure and consumer opinion.
Also the ISO 26000 Standard can contribute to corporate social responsibility, as a useful tool particularly for larger companies. It could bring CSR values higher up on corporate agendas and encourage to the due diligence expected by the UN Guidelines.
The Standard is pretty complicated and not available for free. This is a treshold for many and create a lack of transparency, and thus credibility. It is somewhat hard to see how useful the ISO 26000 can really be when dealing with global supply chains.
Let us also remember that this standard does not set working life norms, this was agreed at an early stage between ISO and ILO. A company cannot be certified for compliance with the Standard. This has been made clear by the ISO itself and any certification approaches are business activities of commercial auditors and consultants.
Politicians have been fast to respond to all these CSR developments, which of course is good. Regrettably, the recent European Parliament resolution bore the fingerprint of activists who wanted to promote their own project work. This was not the right context for that, whatever one thinks about the suggested project itself. We will surely see some changes in it when it moves further through the EU machinery.
Also in the United States, the government is on the move. Bangladesh has been warned that unless they get their house in order when it comes to work safety in the garment factories, they may lose their trade privileges.
Still, something has not changed and should not change. That is the agreed and established principle that international labour norms are set by the International Labour Organisation ILO, and by ILO only.
The ILO is the only United Nations organisation where employers and trade unions work alongside governments, for the common aim to ensure decent working conditions around the globe. International Labour Conventions remain the global constitution for working life. This is correctly acknowledged in all the other guidelines as well as by the voluntary CSR schemes and initiatives.
Only ILO Conventions are enforceable in the way that governments have a formal responsibility to see that they are implemented in full in their countries. The core conventions that address human rights issues do not even have to be ratified, they bind all member countries. Governments that do not take their responsibility for this can be sanctioned, although that would be extremely rare.
Even more important is that the mainstream labour relations system builds on social dialogue and collective agreements between workers and their trade unions, and the employers. Already the ILO process itself reflects this principle which should be carefully defended.
The new kids on the block can bring much added value, but their work can also be used to support paternalist approaches, which should not be supported.