Avainsana: EU

Julkaistu

Portugal visit and old memories coming back – reminded me again of the need for Europe to stick together

A few days ago I came back from a week in Portugal, this time on an autumn holiday. The pleasant visit brought back many memories from my many visits to this beautiful country. Atlantic, not Mediterranean, and this one can both see and feel.

The first time I was there was in 1975 when the Salazar dictatorship had just been overthrown and the country’s trade unions could once again celebrate a free First of May. I brought the greetings of the Finnish trade union confederation to a huge manifestation in Porto, speaking to a crowd of quarter of a million that filled all open spaces and narrow streets in the historical old town.

The Portuguese trade unions also hosted a major athletics event at the stadium in Lisbon. They asked me to assist in the medal ceremony for 10,000 meters as I came from Finland with its glorious (but old) traditions. The winner Carlos Lopes to whom I presented the gold medal was to go on and take silver on 5,000 meters at the Montreal Olympics the following year, after Finland’s (!) Lasse Virén. Later he won the Olympic gold medal in Los Angeles in 1984, in marathon.

A few years later I was in Portugal again with my Nordic  trade union colleagues. The first euphoria had calmed down, for good and worse, and the country was struggling with very concrete everyday challenges.

This was a period in Portugal which was filled by celebration and eagerness to build up a new kind of society after the harsh years of the dictatorship. One can only hope that the country will get over its present economic and thus also social problems and go towards a good future. These are hard working people who have already overcome so many problems that one can be optimistic about this.

My years at UNI then brought me back several times, and it was always very pleasant and inspiring to work and spend time with the Portuguese colleagues. They were also regular and active participants in the European Union social dialogue in commerce.

This most recent visit convinced me, once again, that the European Union needs to stick together and face the challenges that we have in a spirit of solidarity and mutual support. There have been times and occasions when my own country Finland needed – and also got – support from the outside world.

Sticking together is also a part of our common identity as Europeans, which is more valuable than we often remember to reflect on.

Julkaistu

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.

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

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.