Local to global comments in three languages. Much also from Pitäjänmäki Sockenbacka in Helsinki Helsingfors Finland, as well as from the organisations I participate in. The older content is from my previous blog page which I have now closed. Most of the contents on the earlier pages deals with sustainability, human rights and social responsibility in the global supply chains.
Will this year be a game changer when it comes to protecting and promoting human rights, labour conditions and environmental sustainability in global supply chains? Much is now happening on different arenas and if things work out as they should, we may see major positive changes.
There is important government activity in main consumer regions of the world. Many countries are transposing the UN Guiding Principles for Business and Human Rights into national legislation. Germany is committed to drive these issues within the G7 agenda during its Presidency this year. ILO, OECD and the World Bank are all stepping up their supply chain cooperation and activities.
Also the business community is on the move. Many of the world’s largest brands and retailers send signals about a more active grip and closer cooperation on their supply chain sustainability issues. A key player is the Global Social Compliance Programme GSCP which already has a widely accepted Reference Code in place, complemented by a well furbished toolbox for its implementation.
Public-private cooperation is the proper and most effective way for consumer countries to positively influence social and environmental conditions in the global supply chains.
To ensure maximum efficiency and results, brands and retailers on one side and unions and advocacy organisations on the other side need to develop a constructive and pragmatic cooperation and overcome their adversarial relations in supply chain work. Conflicts in other issues should not be allowed to undermine the work for human rights and better conditions for the often very disadvantaged supply chain workers and their families. This is an area where all efforts are needed and different approaches should be accepted and supported.
The GSCP Members meeting in Los Angeles was held at Universal Studios, hosted by NBCUniversal.
Global brands and retailers created the Global Social Compliance Programme GSCP to define what good looks like in global supply chains. Their intention was to drive upward convergence of corporate social standards, thus enabling mutual audit recognition and better cooperation. Multiple and often repetitious audits would be avoided and resources directed to improving conditions.
The approach of this business driven initiative was serious and ambitious. The Reference Code that was to be the backbone of GSCP would be designed to fill the most stringent requirements of existing policies and social standards. This would be done together with trade unions and civil society representatives.
For many of the stakeholders that finally signed up, supporting the new initiative was far from self-evident. My organisation at the time, UNI Commerce Global Union, set its own requirements and conditions, and so did others. After a solid internal consultation process among member trade unions, UNI Commerce decided to join.
The years that we spent creating the GSCP Reference code and the toolbox to help apply it at supplier workplaces showed us that our decision had been correct.
It was a complicated exercise to reconcile the views of huge global retailers such as Wal-Mart, Carrefour and Tesco with those of UNI Commerce, the International Federation for Human Rights FIDH, and others. Still it worked, and the Executive and Advisory Boards always found common ground and agreed on solutions.
Today, GSCP is in place. An actively used environmental module complements the social responsibility instruments. Membership is up and global brands and industries have joined forces with traders. Many programmes and projects are using GSCP tools for capacity building and remediation. Cooperation with UN agencies and others is steadily increasing. Buyers, auditors and CSR schemes use the GSCP equivalence process to enable mutual recognition and joint action.
This is happening in an environment where many union organisations, social campaigners and politicians are suspicious and even hostile towards voluntary approaches by business. The intention of some seems to be to duplicate the Bangladesh Accord on Building and Fire Safety when addressing also other countries, regions and issues.
I doubt that this would work. The Bangladesh Accord responded to an unusually grave situation in the midst of high publicity, and addressed a specific although important part of labour conditions.The way that it finally came about was also exceptional and related to a public opinion that demanded fast action by global buyers.
To bring about something similar in a less upset situation would surely require a mutually respectful relationship where serious intentions of others are recognised and accepted rather than looked at with suspicion and often immediately discarded. In today’s strained economic and labour relations climate, this would call for much re-thinking on all sides.
It is much more realistic to accept and develop multiple approaches to improve the social situation in global supply chains. Governments need to secure the basic respect for human rights as well as decent conditions for workers and their families. Trade unions must have the right and the capacity to give workers a voice in an environment where social dialogue and collective agreements become mainstream tools for regulating wages and employment conditions. Social advocacy associations and other non-governmental organisations need to be positively engaged.
Business driven but with a solid civil society participation, GSCP comes together for its Members Conference and a joint Executive and Advisory Board Meeting this Thursday, in Los Angeles. Priorities will be defined and concrete tasks set.
A platform rather than an operative CSR scheme, GSCP deals with similar issues as individual standard organisations. Still, the programme is different from the schemes and initiatives. GSCP does not conduct audits, issue certificates or engage directly in concrete capacity building and remediation at workplaces.
GSCP has a unique convening power among brands and retailers, much due to the serious commitment of its host association, the Consumer Goods Forum CGF. An important task for GSCP is indeed to mobilise responsible brands and retailers both within and outside the consumer industry for concerted action to help improve supply chain conditions.
To focus on particularly difficult or widespread supply chain problems may well be useful when real changes are sought. Successful projects on this basis can be good catalysts for further remediation of conditions. It is important to set any aims so that they build on the GSCP Reference Code principles of setting standards on the highest existing levels. To go below this could easily lead to misunderstandings or false interpretations and even harm other sustainability activities.
Even if individual issues are singled out for special attention, GSCP cannot distract itself from its core mission as a whole. The GSCP Reference Code is and must remain the backbone of all policies and programmes, to ensure cohesion, credibility, impact and respect.
The final aim of this social responsibility work is a situation where employers and workers can agree on relations and conditions through mutually respectful social dialogue and collective agreements, supported by governments. To achieve this requires that buyer companies help ensure full compliance with universal human rights standards and international labour norms, also where national legislation or policies are not on these levels.
GSCP is an exceptionally good forum to develop joint approaches which then can be implemented through multiple programmes and partner organisations. The UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights is now being included in national legislation and programmes. The German Presidency of the G7 Group of leading industrialised countries has placed supply chain sustainability high on the common agenda for 2015. These are but some of the developments that directly affect GSCP and its role as a convening platform.
The corporate sector wields much power in the globalised economy. GSCP exists to help leading global brands and retailers as well as other parts of the business community to ensure that universal human rights and decent labour standards are respected and applied in global supply chains. This is – and should be – in the interest of all. Without this contribution by the business community itself, change would be both slower and less effective.
This engagement is now building up within GSCP and should be actively nurtured. The member brands and retailers should more clearly show their commitment to GSCP as their common sustainability platform. This would not weaken their ties with schemes and initiatives who have their own missions and roles. GSCP itself should have the members’ support to speak out on their behalf for these business driven activities that are firmly anchored in civil society.
OECD Secretary-General Angel Gurria and ILO Director General Guy Ryder at the preparatory G7 Conference in Berlin in March this year.
A new approach to labour conditions in global supply chains is fast emerging. Human rights and labour standards will be applied in global supply chains more effectively than today. This came clearly out from the recent (10.-11.3.) G7 Conference on sustainable supply chains, arranged in Berlin by the German Presidency.
The Rana Plaza disaster in Bangladesh opened our eyes to the inhuman working conditions in major supplier countries. Those that may have thought that this will be fast forgotten have been proven wrong.
If the German government gets its way, the changes could be closer than we may think. The G7 Presidency is a solid platform for launching the initiative. Having participated in the Berlin Conference, I have no doubts: The political leadership of Europe’s and the European Union’s leading economy is clearly committed to change.
The intention today is to keep the approach voluntary. If the business sector lives up to its obligations, it could remain so. If real change does not happen, we may well see more legislation, sanctions and other binding measures. This would surely be the case also when countries apply the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights.
During two days, stakeholders from leading schemes and initiatives joined NGOs, business associations, governments and others, altogether 300 participants, in discussing the best ways to approach challenges. Germany’s labour and development ministers Andrea Nahles and Gerd Müller, as well as many of their minister colleagues from other countries, participated personally much of the time, joined by top government officials.
Major developments are on their way.
In Berlin, the top leaders of the ILO, OECD and the World Bank sat in the same panel, for the first time ever. They committed their organisations to major roles in bringing about a social dimension to global supply chains.
Chancellor Angela Merkel took a personal interest and issued an important statement on the world economy and its social dimension, together with ILO Director General Guy Ryder, OECD Secretary-General Angel Gurria and World Bank President Jim Yong Kim.
Surprisingly few large brands and retailers were present. Those who were there included Carrefour, H&M and Ikea – not surprising perhaps, when one knows how seriously they approach their supply chain responsibilities. Otherwise the business community – unless I have missed someone – was represented only through organisations, and by a number of German small and medium enterprises who are really focused on sustainability.
To stay away from the meeting was not a good choice.
Most large German brands and retailers question the government’s plans to introduce a sustainability label for consumers. Until now they have tended to distance themselves from the national tripartite textile alliance, the “Textilbündnis”.
The Berlin conference may well change this reserved approach, and hopefully it will. It does not have to mean that the companies give up their substance reservations, and if they really want to promote them they would need to be present.
Brands and retailers also tend to think that they are unable to take responsibility for anything below their first level suppliers. They point at the complicated structures of supply chains and say they are impossible to monitor effectively.
Not only brands and retailers are to be blamed for a lack of concerted action.
Social campaigners and many trade union organisations like to say that buyer companies just want to shy away from their responsibilities, focusing on generating as much profits as they can from their supply chains.
This may be true at times, and surely is, but far from always. There is a clear commitment to decent supply chain standards also in the business community and if the right approaches are found, real improvements will come about.
Taking formal responsibility for a long and complicated supply chain is definitely a serious decision that cannot be made lightly. The same is true about consumer labels. If even advanced monitoring schemes such as the Fair Wear Foundation does not believe even in certifying factories, and SA8000 has decided not to use consumer labeling, then one can ask whether it is really possible to apply this on a general level.
Back to Berlin, business should have participated more actively in the conference. Also for those who have strongly divergent views it would have been better to have them around the table.
Business should indeed be careful and alert. There is a post Rana Plaza world which will not continue to tolerate an economy that allows and even relies on poor and dangerous working conditions and extremely low wages. If a consensus between governments and all stakeholders is not found, we will see political solutions and legislation.
Social campaigners and trade unions should reflect whether it is really smart to dismiss the relevance of multi-stakeholder and business driven CSR initiatives – or social auditing for that. Without the engagement and active participation of buying brands and retailers it will be very difficult to apply any standards. The Global Social Compliance Programme GSCP can be very effective and useful here, and I will surely take some initiatives at our forthcoming board and member company meetings in Los Angeles.
So, what will then happen now?
The UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights will be applied through national legislation in all major industrialised countries. There is no doubt about this. There will also be a legal dimension and home countries of buyer companies will require that obligations are respected.
The OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises will be more effectively applied and national contact points will play more of a role, this was made clear by Secretary-General Angel Gurria.
The world Bank will substantially upgrade social conditions as part of its development projects and is adding to its dedicated staff in cooperation with ILO, as its President Kim told the Berlin meeting.
Next year’s International Labour Conference will focus on global supply chains as a major issue.
I am further convinced that a living wage for all workers will soon be required all through the global supply chains.
When the G7 Presidency actively, openly and forcefully promotes environmental and social conditions in global supply chains, it would be smart to listen very carefully. We may well be witnessing the beginning of a new CSR era that brings a real change to the better for the supply chain workers and their families.
I am preparing for the Global Organic Textile Standard GOTS Technical Committee next weekend in Frankfurt. There is indeed lots to read, but also lots to learn…
No, I have not gone over into agricultural science but will focus on social issues in textile production and supply chains.
The organisation describes itself briefly on its website, which also contains a very solid documentation about this initiative.
“The Global Organic Textile Standard (GOTS) was developed through collaboration by leading standard setters with the aim of defining requirements that are recognised world-wide and that ensure the organic status of textiles from harvesting of the raw materials through environmentally and socially responsible manufacturing all the way to labelling in order to provide credible assurance to the consumer.
Since its introduction in 2006 the Global Organic Textile Standard has already demonstrated its practical feasibility. Supported by the growth in consumption of organic fibres and by the remarkable demand for unified processing criteria from the industry and retail sector, it has gained universal recognition, enabling processors and manufacturers to supply their organic textiles with one certification accepted in all major markets. With the introduction of the logo and labelling system the GOTS is already visible not only on the shelves of natural textile shops but large-scale retailers and brand dealers as well. This is a milestone in consumer recognition and a strong acknowledgement of our reliable quality assurance concept.”
So why did I join this committee? An important reason is that I am impressed with the approach and work of this Standard, which is the only one of its kind and widely recognised. Working on my recent project for the German development ministry BMZ on Fairtrade textile certification GOTS did stand out as a reliable, solid and very practical approach.
There is a growing interest for organic textiles by both consumers and retailers, and it is important that also the people who are engaged in this industry can work under safe, good and dignified conditions.
I am pleased to have been invited to be part of this work and motivated to learn more.
With my experience from and board engagement in two leading corporate social responsibility organisations GSCP – Global Social Compliance Programme – and SAI – Social Accountability International SA8000 – I hope and believe that there are things I can contribute with.
Amazon’s long-lasting labour conflict in Germany raises issues far beyond wages and working conditions. Amazon needs to accept to negotiate with ver.di and to respect European and German working life culture.
The American e-commerce giant refuses to negotiate a collective agreement with ver.di which is the Amazon workers’ trade union, a leading member of Germany’s powerful trade union confederation DGB. According to the union, they make extensive use of time limited employment contracts also when there is no reason for it, and when workers stay quite permanently in their positions. Many wages and other benefits remain below general collective agreement levels even if the workers’ action has already forced management to make some concessions.
Strikes are usually about much more than wages only. For workers to go on strike is a difficult decision and today’s trade unions both know and respect this. The unions know very well that a protracted conflict leads to serious income losses that require a long time to recover, however ‘good’ the result. Here, the workers and their union stand up in defence of German and European social dialogue and collective agreement cultures.
This is not the first time that a U.S. based company wants to play its own game in Europe instead of respecting the rules. Toys”R”Us tried it a few decades ago until it was driven out of Sweden. Wal-Mart got it wrong in Germany, suffered for a few years, and pulled back.
Amazon needs to accept that their German workforce is well organised. They must be prepared to negotiate a collective agreement in good faith, fully respecting International Labour Conventions. In the longer run they will not be able to import an authoritarian human resource management in a culture and environment where social dialogue is widely supported. Many leading German politicians have joined in calling on the company to start negotiating with ver.di and putting an end to this conflict.
This is an example of a large employer forcing a labour conflict by its own behaviour. If the workers and their union would accept management’s refusal to enter into social dialogue and collective agreement negotiations the entire labour relations system could come under pressure.
Not only trade unions should be concerned. Competing employers who approach their workers and their trade unions responsibly have an equal interest to defend themselves. This is shared by society as a whole, particularly in times when social unrest and political instability are increasing also in Europe.
It is no wonder that behaviour like this easily drives polarisation and aggressiveness instead of promoting social dialogue and even cooperation. This will not help Europe to get out of the crisis.
Earlier this year, I completed a feasibility study for the German government about the planned Fairtrade Textile Standard.The report consists of close to 100 pages and focuses on the cotton supply chains, from farming to manufacturing.
This standard is now being developed by Fairtrade International.
I will not post the 100 page report on these pages. Many have asked for the report, however, and I will e-mail it to you on request. Just e-mail me on j.furstenborg@bluewin.ch . Also do this if you have any questions or views.
By the way, in principle I support Fairtrade’s project to develop this standard but I also do have views on how it should be done to be as useful and effective as possible. This is also in line with my overall view that we should welcome all serious and positive approached to improve conditions in global supply chains – and in this case also in small scale farming and rural communities in developing countries.
So, the contents are roughly like this:
Introduction
Is a Fairtrade Textile and Apparel Standard needed and feasible?
Fairtrade as a movement and a concept
Cotton supply chains from farms to factories
Fairtrade and cotton
3Freunde hooded jackets – a Fairtrade cotton approach
Fairtrade in the social responsibility landscape
Fairtrade: Human Rights and Labour Conditions
Fairtrade and the elimination of child labour
Fairtrade Textile and Apparel Standard
Applying a Fairtrade Textile and Apparel Standard
Cotton farming and its impact on the environment
Genetically modified cotton
Organic cotton
Fairtrade and GOTS – added value through cooperation?