Avainsana: European Union

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.