Avainsana: SA8000

Julkaistu

Governments step up supply chain involvement – business and civil society need to work together

Germany-G7

Germany has placed supply chain sustainability high on the agenda of the G7 Group of leading advanced economies. At a stakeholder conference in March in Berlin, the German Presidency announced its intentions to work for a common approach social and environmental standards. Some leading brands and retailers who form a critical mass of global buyers have sent signals that they are prepared to play an active role. This could well be through GSCP, which can make its Reference Code and other tools available.

Seeing a clear engagement of global brands and retailers to improve supply chain conditions makes me optimistic. Last week’s members meeting of the Global Social Compliance Programme GSCP in Los Angeles confirmed this commitment.  And no, it is not really a result of anyone ‘putting pressure on’ or ‘forcing’ them, or any other adverse campaigning and publicity.

The UN Principles for Business and Human Rights – the Ruggie principles – and their follow up both by the public and private sector are of course important. International buyers understand the need for due diligence when managing supply chains, be it about their own work or that of their suppliers and contractors. Universal human rights conventions and international labour norms create a solid basis for this.

This task is not new for most large brands and retailers. They have their own sustainability personnel and are active on the ground, working with their supplier factories and farms. Smaller companies go even further than most, like Swiss apparel retailer Switcher and German Hess Textiles. Both have a hands on approach to ensure social and environmental compliance in the supply chains.

Corporate social responsibility initiatives such as Social Accountability International (SA8000), the Business Social Compliance Initiative BSCI, the Ethical Trading Initiative ETI and the Fair Labor Association FLA have been working for decades to support and promote human rights and decent working conditions in global supply chains. The Fairtrade movement has long traditions as well, as does the Fair Wear Foundation FWF, to mention two others.

These are just some of the many initiatives that contribute to better supply chain conditions, some on a multi-stakeholder basis and some business driven with a civil society contribution. More important than their structures are the code framework withing which they operate, and their concrete support for remediation and capacity building. Of course there are problems, even failures at times, and these schemes cannot cover all needs.

On the environmental side we have a similar situation with dedicated initiatives like the Global Organic Textile Standard GOTS and the Rainforest Alliance – and many others – certifying compliance, informing consumers and supporting companies and supply chain workers.

Better and mutually recognised social auditing
liberates resources for training and remediation

Much is now happening on the social responsibility agenda. The factory catastrophes in Asia exposed limitations and also shortcomings, and led to tighter auditing rules and other improvements. Capacity building and remediation at workplaces is being stepped up. Harmonisation and convergence of codes and standards through GSCP and its Equivalence Process enable mutual recognition of audit results and liberate resources for real positive change.

The social auditing industry itself has been an active partner in these developments. Two years ago at a GSCP conference in San Francisco, I stressed the need for these companies to get organised and establish their own ethical guidelines. This is now happening and the social auditing industry has created its own association.

There has also been much done by specialised organisations such as the Social Accountability Accreditation Services SAAS. SAI has linked SA8000 certification and social auditing to supplier self assessment and remediation, through its innovative Social Fingerprint approach. BSCI – which has the by far largest membership of all schemes – has also tightened up and clarified its auditing rules.

GSCP Supply Chain Conference Shenzhen April 2012

The first years of GSCP were spent on building up a toolkit for applying the principles of the Reference Code. Meetings with buyers and suppliers were an important part of this work. The final tools were then dealt with and agreed by the Executive and the Advisory Board. All tools are freely available. Here, buyers from leading global brands and retailers meet with representatives of both boards in Shenzhen in China in April 2014. This meeting was hosted by Wal-Mart, world’s largest retailer.

The social audit companies themselves work closely with GSCP on minimum auditing standards which create a common base for helping achieve proper conditions, which satisfy the needs of buyer companies, are accepted by civil society, and are supported by the concerned public authorities. A dedicated, efficient and competent social auditing industry needs to play an important and active role in developing the best ways to protect human rights and improve working conditions.

GSCP Reference Code and other Tools
are good basis for G7 supply chain work

All this is now related to important government activity in the consumer regions. The UN Guiding Principles are transposed in national legislation of many countries. Germany, which has this year’s Presidency of the G7 group of major advanced economies, has committed to drive these issues within the common agenda.

At a recent G7 meeting in Berlin, where I had the opportunity to be present as a representative of GOTS, the top directors of OECD, ILO and the World Bank committed their support and pledged cooperative action of their own to help achieve the goals.

GSCP has an important role in channeling a concrete business contribution to the public-private partnership that will be needed to bring about real change and improvements. An initiative of the Consumer Goods Forum CGF, GSCP groups together a critical mass of global buying companies both within and outside this consumer goods industry itself. Its Reference Code as well as the extensive and publicly available toolbox can form both a demanding and realistic base for any standard-setting and implementation.

There are clear signals coming from the Consumer Goods Forum and its member companies that there will be an important upgrading of social and environmental supply chain issues on their agenda. At the same time, there is a solid understanding of the necessity to ensure the acceptance and credibility of this work with civil society.

This underlines the importance of GSCP which is based on always seeking consensus between the business driven Executive Board and the Advisory Board that represents civil society. As an Advisory Board member coming from a trade union background I can vouch for the serious and respectful approach to these principles. Indeed, the boards have never had to vote.

Time to move away from adversarial relations
that make supply chain workers pay for other conflicts

We may see major commitments made and steps taken already this year to tighten up the defence of human rights, improve labour conditions and support environmental sustainability in global supply chains. To ensure that this process will be effective we should move forward from the all too common adversarial attitudes that we have seen when dealing with global supply chains after the fire and building catastrophes of the last years.

The present labour relations climate is of course not particularly favourable for seeking compromises and consensus. Still, it should not be allowed to hinder a constructive cooperation in global supply chain matters.

The GSCP Reference Code as well as leading standards such as the SA8000 provide, when seriously applied, a solid base for a joint approach. They are clear also on common issues of contention between employers and unions in many of the consumer countries. If we are serious about respecting the rights of supply chain workers and improving their social conditions, we should not let these differences reflect on the supply chain cooperation.

Real differences should be approached
through honest and respectful dialogue

There will remain important issues to solve also if we can ensure a positive supply chain cooperation between business, trade unions and engaged non-governmental organisations. We can see this in the living wage discussions, in how to apply freedom of association and the effective right to collective bargaining, in applying working hour rules, and in many other areas. This is normal and acceptable, and the answers should be found through common deliberations, resulting in a clear message from the international community to governments and employers in supplier countries on how worker’s rights and needs have to be protected and promoted as a condition for participating in the global economy.

The common aim must be a situation where employers sit down with workers and their trade unions to freely and respectfully negotiate employment and working conditions, enabled and supported by governments through solid legislation and guarantees for an effective application of what has been agreed. We know that it will take a long time for this to become a reality and that an active involvement of consumer countries – governments, businesses, trade unions and other civil society representatives – will continue to play an important role.

Julkaistu

Berlin Conference: G7 German Presidency drives stronger human rights and labour protection in global supply chains – world brands and retailers should step up their participation

OECD Secretary-General Angel Gurria and ILO Director General Guy Ryder at the podium of the German G7 Presidency Conference on sustainable supply chains in Berlin on 10-11 March 2015.

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.

Julkaistu

SAI and SA8000 remain quality leaders in supply chain sustainability work – board meets in Palo Alto

Social Accountability International meets this week in Palo Alto in California. Hosted by IT -giant Hewlett Packard, the SAI Advisory Board will confirm major changes and improvements in the SA8000 Social Standard and its world-wide application.

SA8000 is not only the best known social supply chain standard, but together with SAI also the most advanced major initiative. Brands and retailers and their suppliers use SA8000 to ensure that human rights are respected and proper labour conditions applied when goods and services are produced.

Alice Tepper Marlin and Robin Cornelius

Working at a SAI Advisory Board meeting in Florence, Italy in 2011. Board member Robin Cornelius at the left is the founder and chairman of Switcher, a socially and environmentally ground-breaking Swiss textile company. Here together with SAI President Alice Tepper Marlin. The Advisory board is tripartite, with representatives of business, trade unions and NGOs and independent academia.

The Standard as well as the entire SAI system does much more than verifies that International Labour Organisation ILO Standards and national labour legislation and collective agreements are respected. While social audits continue to be important and violations need to be acted on, emphasis is already on helping suppliers build social and labour management systems.

The UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights require companies and other actors to apply due diligence in their activities to make sure that human rights are not violated. Core minimum labour standards are set in ILO International Labour Conventions and Recommendations.

To respect and apply these global rules, employers need to have management systems. SAI helps suppliers to build up these resources, through training and other capacity building activities. Much of it is done through SAI’s Social Fingerprint program.

The Social Fingerprint concept is especially innovative, helping workplaces to develop their social compliance with SA8000 and build up their sustainability management systems. It aims at making sure that remediation of human rights and labour conditions will lead to lasting results and a continuous growth process at workplaces, finally serving both companies and their workers.

In addition, Social Fingerprint serves the new and improved SA8000 certification  process, linking auditing and certification to remediation in a unique way, helping to build capacity and social compliance management systems.

Alice Tepper Marlin and Jan Furstenborg Helsinki 2006
With SAI President Alice Tepper Marlin at a corporate social responsibility conference that we arranged in Helsinki in 2006, together with the Finnish social partners in commerce and leading retailer Kesko.

Working in the major producer regions and countries is often complicated. Cultural, social and economic conditions are generally highly different from those in the consumer countries of the west. Finding the right balance is important, between confidence and control, and between encouraging and demanding remediation and change.

For many years, I have followed the work and activities of SAI teams, be they at headquarters in New York or out in the regions where people work in supplier factories and farms. As a typically European understatement I can say that I am really impressed. A superb combination of commitment and professionalism by the SAI people has lead to better conditions at numerous difficult workplaces.

SAI and its ground-breaking work has influenced the whole concept of corporate social responsibility, in many positive ways. Today, its multi-stakeholder approach to solving issues and helping to build up a better working life is an ‘industry standard’, also for business driven schemes. When Alice Tepper Marlin created SAI some 15 years ago there was often not even a dialogue, not to speak about concern for social supply chain matters.

To apply the SA8000 Standard and to work with SAI calls for businesses to be really committed, be they suppliers or buying brands or retailers. Of course, there must be a balance between time and expenses, and reliability and results. SAI has knowingly positioned itself at the upper end of this quality scale.

Compared with most other schemes and initiatives, SAI does lead the way. An example of this is the Business Social Compliance Initiative BSCI, which today joins together over 1,400 mainly European brands and retailers.

In a process which I actively supported and engaged in, BSCI and SAI created close links with SA8000 as the common base. The standard and the system to apply it is still very much the reference point for the Brussels based initiative and its own code and activities.

Theis week’s SAI Advisory Board meeting in Palo Alto is particularly important also in other ways. I do really regret not being able to participate this time.

Alice Tepper Marlin who created SAI and is its President has decided to retire as the organisation’s chief executive officer at the end of next year. Eileen Kaufman, her closest colleague and Co-CEO will take her retirement at the end of this year.

Eileen Kaufman

Eileen Kaufman who retires from her position as Co-CEO at the end of the year has played a central role in developing SAI into a leading initiative in the global sustainability landscape. “She has been a key leader in advancing SAI’s ambitious mission and a soul mate” says SAI founder and president Alice Tepper Marlin, acknowledging Eileen’s great contributions. Here she is at an Advisory Board meeting in 2007 in Hamburg, Germany.

Working with Alice and Eileen has always been and always is both pleasant and inspiring. Their commitment, knowledge and skills are second to none in the CSR community which I have benefited enormously from in a continuous intellectually demanding learning process.

Also with this natural generation change, both Alice and Eileen will have a lot to contribute to the continuing work of SAI, Alice being the founder hopefully continuing as President of SAI, even if in a new and different kind of a role.

Most important is of course the difference that SAI has made for so many workers and their families in the global supply chains. The issues on the meeting table in Palo Alto – and particularly the impressive preparation work that I have observed from close up – show that SAI and the SA8000 Social Standard will continue to be both at the center and at the cutting edge when sustainability and social responsibility find their place at the core of global supply chains.

Julkaistu

Social auditing in global supply chains is an essential tool for defending human rights and improving labour conditions

Demands to give up social auditing in global supply chains continue to emerge in different connections. Part of a political debate, they have not contained any realistic proposals about how to substitute these audits with other ways of gathering the information needed for improving conditions.

There have also been regular calls for opening up audit reports by making them public.

Publishing social audit results would give unions, labour advocacy organisations and others a better chance to intervene on behalf of workers when they see or feel that conditions need to be addressed.

To build up their involvement is a valid aspiration of these players and should not be brushed aside. A broad cooperation can indeed add to the impact of sustainability work where the key objectives are usually so widely shared.

More transparency could add to the relevance of social auditing as a tool that helps to protect human rights and ensure decent employment and working conditions. How to apply this so that the system continues to protect workers and others who provide confidential information to auditors is of key concern.

We can of course not forget that also the audited suppliers’ rights have to be protected, as have those of others involved. To make any changes in social auditing principles has to be approached with utmost care.

Moving from straight-forward ‘yes-or-no’ certification of labour conditions to a more nuanced and detailed audit reporting could well be one solution. Even more important is to link audit reporting directly to capacity building and remediation at supplier workplaces. After all, protecting human rights and securing decent labour conditions form the objective of all these activities.

Social Accountability International SAI has recently revised its SA8000 Social Standard and linked workplace certification directly to capacity building and remediation through its Social Fingerprint program. This is an excellent example of how creating direct and effective links between auditing, certification and remediation can be concretely and systematically approached.

There has also been much impatience among unions and others who say that they have failed to see even urgently needed changes to take place.

We have seen isolated failures of social auditing, but also some more systemic problems, sometimes unexpected until new kinds of situations have emerged. The auditing industry and the cooperating partners in the CSR community need to show that they are capable of handling these issues through more stringent rules and controls. In fact, much has been done, but not always well communicated to a broader public.

The 15 years or so of business driven and multi-stakeholder corporate social responsibility CSR activities have definitely brought improvements to supplier working conditions. Buying brands and retailers know that they must pay serious attention to the social aspects of their purchasing activities. This was not the case before Social Accountability International with its SA8000 Standard and others entered the scene.

The UN Guiding Principles would not have come about without the groundwork done also by the voluntary CSR schemes and initiatives. That Harvard Professor John Ruggie and his team were able to build a consensus around the responsibility of governments and business to protect human rights at work was a remarkable achievement. What was needed was that an important part of the business community already accepted their obligation and interest to approach their supply chains with due diligence.

CSR schemes and initiatives  are surely not the only forces behind these changes. Trade unions and labour advocacy organisations have done their part, as have many others. But changing business attitudes has been closely linked with the emergence of the CSR community, including social auditors.

The social auditing system itself has been far from flawless.

There will always be situations where social audits miss even significant problems or shortcomings at audited workplaces. There can be many reasons for this, one being that these audits cannot cover all factors that affect the work situation. Structural building safety, which in a tragic way proved to be a major and serious problem in the Bangladesh garment industry, is one of those where other approaches and tools were needed and also implemented.

Shortcomings and sometimes even unacceptable performances by individual auditors and companies can of course harm the whole industry. There could be unrealistic expectations towards social auditing, often related to new and unexpected situations. Audits cannot uncover all the deficiencies at a workplace, something which should be more effectively communicated.

It is always hard to find the correct balance between audit quality and costs, an issue which will surely never disappear. How can social auditors spend enough time both on audits and reporting and still keep the paying customers on board? Here, striving for the perfect can threaten the good, and compromising quality can undermine the reliability of the whole system.

There have been individual examples of poor or insufficient internal controls. While not common, they have caused both accreditation bodies and the auditing entities themselves to tighten up their rules. The auditing industry and the CSR community as a whole are well aware of the risks and have done much to control them.

The Global Social Compliance Programme GSCP auditing guidelines which auditing companies can benchmark against through an equivalence process are useful tools for improving social audit performance. They reflect a broad consensus between business and stakeholders about how the auditing system can be kept reliable.

In many parts of the world it will take very long before we see organised workers and their trade unions engage in social dialogue and collective agreement relationships with their employers, in an atmosphere or good faith and mutual respect.

Auditing remains an important part of efforts to secure human rights at work and  improve labour conditions in global supply chains. How could brands and retailers, their suppliers, and concerned stakeholders get the information that they need for remediation and capacity building if this tool did not exist?

Instead of saying no to social audits we should continue to develop and improve these activities.

Workers, trade unions, community organisations and others need to be more involved in monitoring conditions. Buying brands and retailers need to be an active part of this work and cannot outsource their due diligence obligations to others.

Most importantly, the audits have to be effectively and properly linked to and followed up by remediation and corrective action where a need for this has been identified.

Julkaistu

Corporate social responsibility work – improve rather than dismiss

Sometimes I wonder why so many social campaigners choose to continuously attack the concrete work which is being done through corporate social responsibility schemes and initiatives to improve corporate behaviour in global supply chains. It is as if a business enterprise is bad per definition and incapable of getting things right. The worst of the pack are the large brands and retailers, the exception being those that make special efforts to nurture their relations with the campaigning non-governmental organisations, NGOs.

I am not referring here to concrete criticism, which is both needed and welcome. There is surely room for much improvement, and we have already seen many positive changes after the devastating factory disasters in Bangladesh and Pakistan.

I myself am regularly frustrated over how slowly and poorly code and standard contents are often applied at producer workplaces. Most leading brands and retailers are committed to decent supply chain conditions, but not all do enough for real remediation on the ground. When they do they seldom tell the world about it, information is quite obviously not their best skill.

This is not to say that nothing would be done on the ground. Much is going on to raise awareness and build competence in producer companies and their workplaces. International buyers as well as their corporate social responsibility schemes and initiatives are engaged in this work. Although the important building safety Accord and Alliance in Bangladesh are well funded, active and concrete, they are of course not alone in this field.

Social auditing is the main tool to find out about labour conditions and to identify where improvements are needed. I have much respect for the auditing industry and its auditors who approach their task seriously and skillfully. Not every supplier company is honest and straight-forward, and hiding or falsifying information is a serious problem in some regions. Advanced auditor skills and much experience are needed to see the reality behind these smokescreens.

Surely, there are also less serious auditors out there, and they should be weeded out by the industry itself. We deal with important issues for the workers concerned, and even one rotten egg in the auditor basket can destroy much.

Social auditing and corporate social responsibility CSR schemes and initiatives are a second best solution to supporting human rights and promoting decent work in global supply chains. Social dialogue and collective agreements between well organised workers and employers, supported by solid and actively enforced labour legislation, are of course the best. This is also what CSR work should aim at. But – we need to be realistic, this could still be a very distant goal in many regions and countries.

Social Accountability International SA800, the Ethical Trading Initiative ETI and the Business Social Compliance Initiative BSCI are some of the leading schemes and initiatives. The Global Social Compliance Programme GSCP is a broad business owned organisation with a strong civil society participation which drives upward convergence and mutual recognition between companies and their organisations to combat so-called audit fatigue and release resources to capacity building and remediation at workplaces.

Back to where I started. Having a life-long trade union background, I sometimes quietly shake my head when I see how CSR schemes and initiatives as well as the supply chain sustainability work of brands and retailers is just being summarily opposed instead of making concrete suggestions and demands for changes and improvements. These activities – driven by brands and retailers whether they are business or multi-stakeholder owned – are in many cases the only outside support for supply chain workers.

Yes they are often far from being sufficient and a lot remains to be done but the focus should be on improving rather than dismissing.

Julkaistu

Campaigner field days don’t help the launch of building and fire safety activities in Bangladesh which will require broad cooperation between all those involved

When the Business Social Compliance Initiative BSCI marked its 10th Anniversary last week in Brussels, the Clean Clothes Campaign ‘congratulated’ them with a veritable broadside attack in media.

Last weekend, just days before we expect to be informed about how concrete action will start to improve building and fire safety in the Bangladeshi garment industry, the International Labor Rights Forum ILRF in the US seems embarked on anti-capitalist campaigning and demonstrations against leading US retailers, for having chosen other approaches.

As such there is nothing wrong with this. Campaigning is acceptable and sometimes even important. Still, there are some question marks.

Very many of the European retailers and brands that signed up to the Bangladesh Building and Fire Safety Accord, if not most of them, are BSCI members and are actively engaged in this organisation. Many of them were in Brussels, and the CCC message was clearly badly received even if not publicly raised or commented. If the intention  is to prepare the ground for a concrete and efficient cooperation in Bangladesh, the CCC attack was both misguided and poorly timed.

These campaigners in the Netherlands should reflect on  how they can best contribute to a good start of project activities and try to control the temptation to continuously go after brands and retailers, giving the impression that one of the reasons is that they are brands and retailers, and represent big capital. This is not a good time for that kind of campaigning.

The ILRF campaigning against Wal-Mart and GAP – and now other retailers as well – has other motives and grounds of course, but is equally questionable as it is pulling the focus off practical project work in Bangladesh. If the aim is to build some kind of even minimal mutual confidence to enable cooperation and coordination on the ground in Bangladesh, then anti-imperialist field days like this just before the project launch will not help.

Yes I do of course strongly support the Accord that was finally introduced by IndustriALL. After all, I have been engaged myself in bringing the coalition and activities about.

This is not the same ‘Accord’ as some of these campaigner organisations were unsuccessfully pushing for since a few years back. It is a new creation, developed in cooperation with leading global retailers and brands, at the initiative of companies and stakeholders in Global Social Compliance Programme GSCP. When IndustriALL joined this process, facilitated by the German development authorities, a coalition started to form. Of course the 2011 campaigner driven project plan was one of the elements used when the Accord was created, but not more.

It is regrettable that a broad US brand and retailer participation fell on the clause on the Accord that deals with the possibility of litigation in courts. As I am not a US lawyer I cannot take a stand on whether the companies’ fears of campaigning through the courts are justified or not. Here the enterprises and the campaigners disagree. A reality is that most large US retailers and brands have stayed outside the Accord and launched their own initiative.

The next months and years will prove if this US approach is serious or not. The pressure on the companies involved to show that they can produce real results will be high, as it will also on the Accord.

It is a good sign that IndustriALL Global Union has continued to keep its sight set on what needs to be done to secure the success of the Accord. Without this organisation, a broad coalition like the one we see today would never have been possible.

Perhaps it is time for the unions to calm down their most eager NGO supporters, and help IndustriALL and the committed companies to get a good start for their activities. Nobody can afford internal strife in a situation where the challenges are as big as here, not the least in convincing the local players of the seriousness of the initiative.