Artikkelit

Julkaistu

Trade unions should step up their engagement with social responsibility initiatives, influence from the inside to improve supply chain workers’ conditions

Are some trade unions turning against corporate social responsibility and voluntary schemes? Recent statements and action has surely given this impression, but is it really so? Is the union-campaigner alliance around garment industry fire safety a single issue phenomenon or does it signify a deeper change?

Somehow it is easy to see why social campaigners seek confrontation with buyers and retailers and their CSR schemes and initiatives rather than cooperation, even when cooperation would be the best way to bring real improvements to the supply chain workers.

Many of these organisations deserve credit for having brought appalling supply chain conditions into the public eye in countries where the products are sold and consumed. They have been largely successful, which we can see today when no renowned brands or retailers can ignore their responsibilities. Some of the worst abuses have also been if not totally eliminated, at least considerably cut down.

There is quite obviously an impatience among campaigners that companies do not go as fast or as far as they should, and that for them this is more about damage control than a serious work to improve labour conditions. Surely, this can be so in some cases. Campaigner reaction should be to focus on changing this, not abandoning the whole CSR  instrument.

Some campaigner organisations themselves may feel that there is a risk to be marginalised and lose influence as business driven operations are spreading and becoming more visible and active.

I would not question the idealistic motives behind this kind of campaigner approach, and it is not common for all campaigners. Instead I wonder if it makes sense and is effective. One should also be realistic, political and other interests can play in, either within such organisations or among those who back them up.

High unemployment and economic hardship in most consumer countries contribute as well. Brands and retailers are criticised for moving production outside the countries where they themselves are based or active. This is a valid criticism also when one accepts that industrial growth in new countries is necessary to raise their low living standards, and that a globalised economy is necessary as such for economic and social development.

This is not the place to go deeper into these issues, but they do play an important role particularly when unions decide to back up supply chain focused campaigners. The more pressure these campaigns put on large brands, industries and retailers, the better they support these traditional union objectives.

There may be also other aims for some of the union campaigners. Companies that are considered anti-union are especially targeted – to push them to accept unionisation but even more to show unionised competitors the disadvantages of not accepting trade union representation and collective agreement, and the advantages of doing it.

I will not take a stand on these issues here, that may come later. They are also not black and white, and can be looked at from many angles. My question here is only whether it is correct to allow them to influence policies and action when it should be about conditions for really disadvantaged workers in much poorer countries.

Trade unions have never found it easy to approach business driven voluntary initiatives, aiming to set working conditions without union involvement and collective agreement. From the union point of view this gives employers the right to impose wages, working hours and other other conditions while denying workers influence over their own working lives.

It was neither easy nor straightforward for the the global retail trade unions in UNI Commerce to join the advisory board of the Global Social Compliance Programme GSCP. On the board and among the GSCP membership were many retailers which were considered strongly anti-union, and with whom UNI and UNI Commerce had major ongoing conflicts. How could we then sit on the same board with them?

I was Head of UNI Commerce at that time, and already had some experience of CSR supply chain cooperation with major companies. Many years earlier I had succeeded UNI General Secretary Philip Jennings on the Advisory Board of Social Accountability Internations SAI (SA8000). I also represented UNI-Europa Commerce on the Stakeholder Board of the Business Social Compliance Initiative BSCI. Although we had wished for faster progress, we could see many positive effects from the work of these two organisations. We also saw the benefits in a union and civil society influence and participation.

After long and deep discussions among our member trade unions we decided to get onboard when the GSCP created its multi-stakeholder Advisory Board. The motives were moral and ethical rather than based on our own priorities and objectives.

We were not prepared to compromise when it came to setting our members’ working conditions through social dialogue and collective bargaining. We could see, however, that in most parts of the global supply chains this would probably not be possible for many years to come. Thus, the commitment of big buyers to require that supply chain workers are treated correctly and enjoy decent working conditions was seen as a positive and necessary.

It was encouraging to see the maturity and responsibility of the commerce trade union leaders who refused to see the supply chain workers as tools for reaching their own objectives at home. The decision was based on the finest traditions of labour solidarity.

Union involvement in CSR programmes, schemes and initiatives has been essential to keep these focused on supply chain workers’ conditions. Had unions not participated, they could have become breeding grounds for paternalist approaches and competitors with worker empowerment and collective agreements. Without unions participating, these schemes and itnitiavites would not be as clear in their respect for freedom of association as most of them are today.

Sometimes I have wondered why trade unions and their projects do not make more effective use of this by soliciting and supporting buyer support for their organising efforts.

For unions to now distance themselves from these CSR programmes would be ill advised. The economic crisis that continues to affect most consumer countries puts growing pressures on supply chain workers and their conditions. Hard price competition in retailing makes companies source for low cost suppliers, which we see clearly in a migration of many buyers from China to even cheaper countries in Asia. That major shareholders who have seen the value of their investments dwindle keep pushing operative management for ever bigger returns does not help.

It would essential that trade unions and other civil society representatives continue and even strengthen their engagement in the CSR schemes and initiatives, instead of distancing themselves. With all their shortcomings these are among the few mechanisms which exist for the outside world to practically and effectively support human rights and decent conditions in the global supply chains.

It is clear that also the CSR schemes and initiatives must develop if they are to retain their usefulness and confidence, in the eyes of brands and retailers but also trade unions and other stakeholders. The tragic fire catastrophes in Pakistan and Bangladesh exposed many shortcomings that must be addressed. Issues include social auditing and certification, which still is too unreliable and probably needs major reforms to survive. Worker empowerment and continuous involvement is an urgent issue to approach, without it one can question whether the audit ‘snapshots’ are still up to date when the auditors have left.

A key issue is the link between CSR and purchasing practices. There is much positive development here, this I have seen in my engagement with GSCP. The social responsibility professionals are doing a systematic work and my impression is that there is a growing appreciation and support for its importance by top corporate management.

These are some things that unions should be pushing for, from the inside. They are also issues that I will come back to in later comments.

Julkaistu

Bangladesh fire safety: Instead of only attacking multinationals the EU Parliament should seek their engagement and support

Not well chosen words by the British Member of the European Parliament Richard Howitt when he spoke at the Plenary yesterday on fire safety in Bangladesh factories:

“So in this debate we should condemn companies, including Walmart, Gap and Sweden’s H&M, who have so far refused to sign Bangladesh’s fire and building safety agreement to upgrade factories.”

It should be remembered that this is only one of many proposed projects and that also others are in the makings.

To start by condemning huge and resourceful companies who should instead be welcomed to be part of the efforts to improve supply chain conditions is not particularly smart.We can have our own views on how they are operating, but if change is to come about they must be angaged. All three of them have committed to this, and rather than pushing them away they should of course be invited to participate.

It is also fair to acknowledge that much has already been done by these three multinational retailers to address fire safety and other issues in their supply chains. Perhaps not enough, and perhaps purchasing practices still need to be changed to bring about real advances, but this is not the way to do it. It just seems that much of the criticism stems from the campaigners who own the project which Howitt referred to.

In Bangladesh itself a tripartite cooperation has been established, supported by the ILO. Why can this not be the the EU approach as well?

That Howitt spoke as the Parliament’s rapporteur on corporate social responsibility would have made his words even more difficult to understand if the debate had really been only about fire safety and Bangladesh. Now Howitt turned his presentation into a general call for stricter regulation of brands and retailers in supply chains, through the UN Guiding Principles and the OECD Guidelines for multinationals.

I can agree with much of what he said about the need for buyer companies to get more responsible for and involved in supply chain conditions. What is sad though is that once again, already disadvantaged supply chain workers are made into instruments for promoting political objectives, however good these objectives might be.

It was also not well advised by the rapporteur to single out one of the planned factory fire safety projects for this part of Asia. The campaigner-driven project that he referred to should be supported, as of now only two companies have signed up, but there are others as well which can have a similar or perhaps even a bigger impact. It is time for coalition building, not infighting in the consumer countries.

I hope that this less fortunate presentation and formulation of the resolution will not weaken efforts to come to grips with global supply chain problems. MEP Howitt is widely appreciated for his strong support for social and economic justice, but this time things just seemed to go less well.

Share this:

Julkaistu

Tripartite cooperation in Bangladeshi textile industry to address fire safety problems

The fire safety problems in the Bangladeshi textile industry are to be addressed locally, through a tripartite cooperation. The government, the manufacturers and employers associations, and the trade unions signed a joint commitment yesterday. A National Action Plan on Fire Safety will be developed before the end of February.

This is good news for everyone, particularly for the country’s garment workers who will hopefully see a fast improvement of their conditions. A broad cooperation in the countries which consume these products becomes even more urgent now, to support the action of the local partners and to work alongside with them.

Also leading multinational brands and retailers are clearly prepared to participate in bringing real improvements about. Now is the time to transform this commitment into concrete action, in cooperation with governments, trade unions and civil society organisations. The work does not need to start from scratch, much has already been done through various projects, particularly with regard to awareness raising and training.

What is new now is the realisation that also such things as the factory premises themselves, fire safety equipment, safety inspections, firefighting capacity and other structures and procedures have to be brought up to acceptable standards. This will be expensive, and buying brands and retailers as well as the end consumers have to be prepared to participate substantially.

Let’s hope that the ILO-supported tripartite initiative in Bangladesh will lead to similar cooperation in other countries concerned, particularly Pakistan.

Julkaistu

European Parliament members call for more brand and retailer responsibility – but new labelling standard for global supply chains may be unrealistic

Today’s European Parliament discussion about factory fire safety in Bangladesh and other supplier countries is significant for the whole concept of corporate social responsibility. For the first time there is a serious attempt at this level to force multinational brands and retailers to require their suppliers to respect ILO Labour Conventions. The resolution has been put forward by a broad coalition of political groups which should mean that it becomes the opinion of the Parliament.

Even if the way to European legislation will still be long, this is an important initiative. It should lead to an active and constructive exchange about the best ways of ensuring the human rights and proper working conditions for supply chain workers.

The EU parliamentarians propose a new labeling standard to ensure that the labeled product has been produced in accordance with the core ILO labour standards. Whether this is useful can be discussed. Those of us who have worked actively with these issues know how difficult it is to develop a reliable social labeling system, if not outright impossible. Who would interpret whether conditions have been right. What about countries where freedom of association is not fully respected? How would the controls be built up? Would labels be required for all products and all producing countries, including the EU Member States, Switzerland, Norway, United States, Australia – just to mention a few.

I also doubt whether still another social standard would make sense. The problem today is rather that there are too many of them. This is a main reason for the Global Social Compliance Initiative GSCP driving an upward convergence and mutual recognition. If the EU starts to work for still another code, and establishes a labeling system, it will once again move resources away from improving workers’ conditions, to multiple auditing and added bureaucracy.

Still, the initiative itself is good and commendable. Also when it comes to fire safety, this should contribute to real improvements of today’s situation in many countries, particularly in Asia. The European countries need to make it clear to governments in some of the supplier countries that they have to improve their act considerably if they want their industries to enjoy a continued access to the EU markets.

Also private initiatives are continuing and evolving, initiated both by the corporate world itself or launched by civil society organisations. All those who are involved have to show the maturity and responsibility to cooperate rather than engage in attacking and questioning the seriousness or justification of what others are trying to do.

If something good is to come from the recent tragedies, it could perhaps be a more general acceptance that human rights are universal, that they have to be actively supported also in global supply chains, and that decent working conditions cannot be denied whatever competitive interests companies believe that they have.

Julkaistu

Bangladesh and Pakistan factory fire safety must be supported by broad coalition that lays aside other conflicts

Companies, unions and campaigners must set aside their differences and work together on supply chain fire safety.

If we really want to help improve factory fire safety in Bangladesh and Pakistan we need to move from talking to doing. There is one effective working week left for the global economy and supply chains in 2012. This is not much, but should be enough for concrete commitments to be made and plans of action agreed. This allows for the all-important work on the ground to begin early next year.

Already before the tragic factory fire in Bangladesh, I took the initiative to raise fire safety issues urgently also within the Global Social Compliance Programme GSCP. This was a reaction to the disastrous fire that struck the Ali Enterprises garment factory in Karachi in Pakistan in early September, and was readily agreed to by both the executive and advisory boards.

Nobody would of course have wanted to see that when the boards met for a joint meeting in Switzerland at the end of November, there was a second disaster to prove that urgent action is needed to protect the safety of workers in these as well as many other countries, where the present situation is bad beyond belief.

When I asked GSCP to take this up as an urgent issue on the joint agenda of the executive and advisory boards it was because of the unique convening power that this programme has among buyer brands and retailers.

GSCP itself is not really adapted to deal itself with the immediate needs for correcting the safety situation on the ground. It is more of a platform for encouraging and advising buyers and retailers on integrating high social and environmental standards into their supply chain behaviour. Driving upward convergence of individual codes, standards and other tools to achieve this, GSCP can help to move resources from social and environmental auditing to the all-important capacity building and remediation at supplier workplaces.

Leading global brands and retailers are already working together within GSCP on many aspects of supply chain responsibility, both on central levels and in regions where their buyers are active. When it comes to social and environmental conditions, the approach is non-competitive. I am convinced that we will very soon see this culture of working together forming a realistic and solid basis for their concrete and substantial contributions to making supplier factories safer for the workers.

This will further underline the important role that GSCP plays, but also that of individual corporate responsibility schemes and initiatives. They are not there as a substitute for obligatory rules or collective bargaining between employers and trade unions, but a tool to promote the same aims in circumstances where this would often not be possible without them.

During the last weeks we have seen an intensive discussion activity about the social dimensions of these global supply chains. Once again, we have been reminded of the bad and dangerous conditions of many workers who produce apparel and other goods for the world markets and consumers.  This public discussion with all its excesses has been useful and important for raising awareness among both those directly concerned and the general public.

And yes, there have also been excesses and ill-advised attacks, which have not necessarily contributed to build confidence for joint work to support concrete changes and improvements. We should still understand the frustration that drives also those who rightly feel that many safety risks should have been addressed much earlier. Clearly, there is scepticism also about the real preparedness of large buyers to participate, and to accept that their purchasing prices may be affected.

Now is the time to move on from this discussion. Positions have been established and opinions registered. Unless all focus on concrete action now, the supply chain workers and their families will not see improvements in their conditions. All who want to engage themselves in real ways  must now talk and work together, however differently they see the larger picture.

Brands and retailers, corporate social responsibility schemes or initiatives, global or national trade unions, non-governmental organisations, public sector authorities and institutions, suppliers and traders – they and others must now come together. Concrete projects and other action is needed.  Only a broad and powerful coalition can make a real difference for the workers who are concerned.

There are already things that have been done, which are useful when developing a comprehensive programme. Buyer companies have developed awareness raising and training materials, and already engaged in important capacity building efforts, such as French multinational Carrefour and Swedish apparel giant H&M. Others have developed their own projects and budgeted important funds for them, one of the public examples being the US based garment company GAP. All these companies have longstanding commitments to social supply chain responsibility and much experience of dealing with these issues.

An important part should also be that of the initiative which campaigner and advocacy organisations –  the Clean Clothes Campaign, the International Labor Rights Forum ILRF, the Workers Rights Consortium WRC and the Maquila Solidarity Network –  have launched last year in Bangladesh. With union and NGO support and commitment to participate by two large companies that also have solid social responsibility track records – US-based PVH and German Tchibo – they have developed a concept that is really worth a close look when developing any approaches also on a broader basis.

If a broader coalition can come together very soon – as I think it will – care should be taken that it can provide also a platform for a multitude of individual projects which are well aligned with all other activities. This civil society driven project should be one of these, and it should be in common interest to ensure that it then gets the necessary backing to be launched. The owners of this project should also see the benefit in this and be prepared to work as a part of a larger effort to ensure real and significant results.

Some key considerations when building a broad and common approach should be :

  1. Governments in the countries concerned must act to secure and effectively enforce safety regulations in all workplaces, not only those that work for the export sector.  There is also much work needed to combat corruption, which has a big negative influence both on fire safety conditions and on dealing with catastrophes when they happen.
  2. Individual suppliers and their industry federations must understand that demands on securing worker safety are serious and have to be acted on if they want to continue their business relations and role in global supply chains. They cannot only hide behind allegations that pressure on prices and supply conditions by international buyers push them to ignore safety considerations when building and operating factories. Even if this indeed is an important factor, it is far from the only reason for unacceptable conditions.
  3. Brands and retailers, traders and others who are engaged in global supply chains and who benefit from the work done in these factories and other workplaces have to carry their part of the responsibility, also when it comes to economic issues. Prices and other supply conditions must be on a level that allows for safe working conditions to be established and upheld, and respects the human right of supply chain workers and their families to live their lives in dignity. Here, buyers cannot hide behind anti-trust regulations and the authorities in the developed world have to accept that a level playing field may be one of the necessary conditions for dealing with this issue. This time, the economic dimension will be important, the fire safety situation will require also many structural and construction changes that will cost a lot of money. Part of this has to be carried by international buyers and the end consumers in the developed world.
  4. Campaigners and trade unions must take care that they do not use these issues as a vehicle for promoting other aims and objectives, however urgent they may be seen. They have to be prepared and able to work side by side also with companies whom they may have fundamental differences with when it comes to other parts of labour relations or their conceived social and environmental behaviour.  There is a job to be done here, and if the business sector is now prepared to act strongly and concretely, campaigners and unions should support rather than question it, and accept that everyone will have to make compromises along the road to secure that the main aim is achieved.

At the end of the day, successes and failures will be measured on how effectively changes are put in place locally. This means that relations between employers and workers have to be developed as well. Without a worker empowerment which normally takes place through trade union organising and social dialogue, credible workplace action and controls can become impossible. In addition to employers and unions themselves, the corporate social responsibility schemes and initiatives must consider taking a step further from a passive recognition of freedom of association and the right to collective bargaining and work for active worker empowerment to be included as part of their codes and standards, in addition to being raised in capacity building and remediation.

Julkaistu

Global supply chain fire safety requires broad action: Now is not the time for pushing pet projects

Wednesday morning, I listened to Alice Tepper Marlin’s thoughtful, balanced and responsible views on how we can best help workers in the global supply chains to enjoy safe and decent labour conditions. Social Accountability International and the truly multistakeholder SA 8000 Social Standard are very much the results of her engagement over the years.

When she started her groundbreaking work to make brands and retailers aware of their social obligations for those supply chain workers who contribute so much to their results, nobody could believe that this would one day be an important part of both public and corporate policies. For me as a trade unionist, the years with SAI and SA 8000 have been an important experience that has shown that patient work involving very different stakeholders can lead to important and concrete results.

The programme that was aired on US Public Radio the day before also interviewed New York Times journalist Steven Greenhouse, and one of the American social campaigners.

Steven Greenhouse is both engaged and knowledgeable, and understands the problems created by a world economy where apparel is produced cheaply and under often unacceptable conditions in less developed countries, to be sold by brands and retailers engaged in cut-throat price competition on their global markets. His scepticism towards large buyer companies and their willingness to make real improvements comes through, and yes I do understand this. But I hope and also believe that the next weeks will show how things are changing and moving forward.

The active role of the New York Times and of Steven Greenhouse himself in speaking out for better conditions in global supply chains is something to both welcome and support although there may also be conclusions and suggestions that not all will share.

The US social campaigner who was on the programme has been very active in commenting Pakistan and Bangladesh fire disaters. He is also a spokesperson for a particular fire safety project that his organisations has put together with others, including some important trade unions as well.

The concerns that this campaigner voiced over the sub-standard and also dangerous labour conditions that can be found in many supplier countries are valid.

More difficult to understand is why an experienced campaigner believes that attacking, shaming and condemning instead of inviting would be the efficient way of convincing some of the world’s largest multinationals to help change the reality for these Asian supply chain workers.

It is also hard to see what purpose is served by declaring all voluntary corporate social responsibility commitments and activities to be failures and useless. This is totally unfair against all the schemes and initiatives, most of them with a solid trade union and stakeholder participation, who are engaged in a concrete and important work in countries and at workplaces all through the global supply chains. It is also an affront against all those skilled and committed sustainability and corporate responsibility professionals who enabled their employers to make important steps in mainstreaming both environmental and social values and principles into buying operations and other core commercial functions.

To try to discredit this work instead of supporting a further development – and corrections where they are needed – serves no constructive purpose and is not in the interests of the supply chain workers whose working and living conditions this is about. If these schemes and initiatives would cease to exist, there would be nothing to put instead in so many countries of the world.

Perhaps the issue of these particular campaigners is more about moving the emphasis towards aggressive campaigning and attempts to force business to accept changes, rather than multi-stakeholder cooperation and social dialogue based action. It is unrealistic to believe that this would work.

To say that brands and retailers would ignore the problems and challenges posed by poor and unacceptable labour conditions at supplier factories and farms is neither correct nor fair. There is much work going on that aims to build local capacity to deal with these conditions and to support and promote remediation where it is necessary. Another thing is of course that the recent devastating factory fires show that this is not yet enough.

When these campaigners are aggressively pushing buyer companies to lend their support to and participate in their Bangladesh fire safety project, they fail to mention that much has already been done by some of the large brands and retailers who are sourcing in the country.

Carrefour and H&M are but two of these, having trained both managers and workers in hundreds of supplier factories, to understand and to deal better with fire hazards. GAP which has announced an important project in the same sense is being strongly attacked for not putting its support behind the campaigners’ project instead.

Don’t misunderstand me. The campaigner initiative is a highly supportable, and addresses also many such issues that cannot be solved only by awareness raising, capacity building and training. What is less good is that they give an impression of the most important thing being on whose conditions and under whose leadership things are done. To start by saying that buyers do not care about worker safety and cannot be trusted, and then demand that the same buyers join this project, is not the most effective way if one want to see real results at factories and in other workplaces.

There is no doubt about it: After the recent big disasters, we are going to see supply chain activities that involve major buyers, many of them world-class brands and retailers, together with social responsibility schemes and initiatives, SAI and others. Some have already started.

None of these businesses or stakeholders want to have a repeat of these tragic disasters, and we will probably see important changes taking place also at the very heart of sourcing and purchasing practices. These will have aconcrete effect on working and safety conditions.

What is now important is to make sure that whatever programmes are set up, they also address the need of structural changes at the workplaces, which brings them up to reliable safety standards, and do not stop only at awareness building and training. This will also cost a lot of money, which will have to be accepted by the supplier industries themselves, but also by the buyer companies and their customers, including the consumers in developed economies.

A key issue is to convince the governments in the producing countries about the need to act on the supply chain workering conditions. Only a common front of business and stakeholders, working from a politically neutral position, can bring this about, with strong support from governments both in producer and consumer countries.

To think that this could be achieved through a global governmental cooperation is surely unrealistic, as we have seen in the failure to raise even much ‘easier’ social considerations at many earlier occasions, including in the World Trade Organisation WTO.

This is not the time to make politics or to promote particular projects, however good someone may think that they are. Instead, it is a time for joining forces and cooperating, to the benefit of these disadvantaged supply chain workers and their families. There will be both room and a need for all those who wish to contribute, and their projects.