Avainsana: SA8000

Julkaistu

BSCI celebrates its first 10 years as a success story that needs to be vigilant about new challenges and a fast developing labour environment

If some still seriously think that the time for  corporate social responsibility schemes is over, they should take a close look at BSCI, which in these days celebrates its tenth anniversary. Through its formidable convening power, this business driven initiative with a strong stakeholder participation has signed up already over 1,000 brands, retailers and other traders in concrete work for better supply chain conditions.

As Jan Eggert, Achim Lohrie and some others started to work on this Business Social Compliance Initiative ten years ago, there was much skepticism in both business and labour circles. Some brands and retailers saw this as a German ‘operation’, and many unions suspected foul intentions behind this employer action.

I admit that I was among those that looked with some suspicion at this process. However, my talks with Jan Eggert convinced me that the companies in the Foreign Trade Association FTA who were behind this process were serious, and that trade unions and other stakeholders should lend their support to it. This was also confirmed by my organisation UNI-Europa Commerce, who agreed that we engage ourselves in the BSCI Stakeholder Board. I am pleased that Fabrice Warneck of UNI-Europa Commerce continues to be a board member, which shows social responsibility for supply chain workers and is surely a good decision also for his members.

To link BSCI with Social Accountability International SAI and its SA8000 Social Standard was an important decision by the European brands and retailers. That gave credibility to the BSCI code and work, SAI being a respected multistakeholder organisation with its widely recognised and renowned SA8000 Social Standard.

Originally the intention was that companies committed to the BSCI code, which to some parts was lighter and less rigid to apply, would all end up fully implementing the more demanding SA8000. This has not really worked, probably also because of the almost explosive growth of BSCI. The aim has also been overtaken by the move of focus in the whole CSR community from codes and audits to capacity building and remediation. Here, BSCI has done a lot.

When the relation between SAI and BSCI needed to enter a more structured stage, some new problems came up. This was so particularly in SAI where opinions were split about going forward through a formal agreement. It was really all  about whether the BSCI Code  should need to include the right of supply chain workers to a living wage instead of – as it still does – talking about “legal minimum and/or industry standards”.

When we decided on this issue in the SAI Advisory Board, the union representation was split. I was in favour of an agreement with BSCI, which for me then represented an important group of companies where our unions and union members worked.

For the general secretary of the textile and garment workers international Neil Kearney the situation looked different, which I well understood. He saw the lack of a clear clause on a living wage as a major flaw which was weakening the position of the workers whom he represented. I had many and long discussions about this with him, we agreed that a living wage definition is necessary and essential, but had different views on whether this should lead to refusing the agreement with BSCI.

The multistakeholder Advisory Board of SAI finally voted in favour of a more formal cooperation with BSCI. This lead Neil Kearney to leave the board, reluctantly I know, also as I was sitting next to him at the meeting where this took place. It is good that he and his organisation did continue to work closely with SAI also after this.

There has been some public misrepresentation about why Neil and the textile workers left the SAI Advisory Board so I thought it useful to tell what really happened.

Perhaps the time now is indeed better for the BSCI to have another look at living wage issues. They are complicated for sure, but as the situation in Bangladesh shows, they must nevertheless be addressed.

IndustriALL Global Union deserves a lot of support for its work on behalf of the disadvantaged workers in the global supply chains and this is definitely one of the issues. We have seen that practical solutions are not always easy to find when many brands and retailers use the same factories. HM chief executive Karl-Johan Persson is one of the corporate leaders who have signaled preparedness to do something real here if the solutions can be found. BSCI could perhaps work with IndustriALL – and with the Global Social Compliance Programme GSCP to bring in a global dimension – to see how non-competitive improvements could be made while preserving a level playing field in the industry and between producer countries.

It would of course be easy to criticise both BSCI and other CSR initiatives for all what they have failed to achieve, and in fact many campaigners do this. Although not as aggressive as the US based campaigner attacks on SAI, BSCI has received its fair share of campaigner criticism as have all voluntary schemes and initiatives. As long as the criticism is honest and concrete and aims at improving conditions, it should be welcomed. Shareholder and other corporate interests often weigh in the other direction, so this push is definitely needed however unfair and irritating it may feel at times.

Looking at BSCI, one should reflect whether the Bangladesh building and fire safety alliance would ever have taken off unless BSCI had prepared the ground by mainstreaming supply chain social responsibility in European commerce. Probably not, as it would have been much more difficult for companies to find common ground and a concrete approach.

When IndustriALL and other Global Union Federations invited buyers to sign up, the large brands and retailers had already worked out an advanced project concept. This was initiated within the Global Social Compliance Programme GSCP already in September last year, on my suggestion after the devastating Ali Enterprise fire in Pakistan, and a project had been drafted in cooperation with the German development agency GIZ. Thus, a common view could be found, which was good, as was the cooperation between the social partners. It is regrettable that the issue of legal litigation was allowed to become an insurmountable obstacle for most US companies to join, which lead them to approach the same tasks through their own project. Without BSCI, we could have seen perhaps different but still similarly important complications in Europe as well.

Like for all initiatives, the world after the Pakistan and Bangladesh catastrophes probably looks different for the people in BSCI than what it used to. I can see that BSCI – as well as SAI – has already addressed some issues where improvements are urgently needed. Subcontracting social audits are restricted or even forbidden and controls are stricter. This is going in the right direction, and I am sure that other changes will follow.

I have made some suggestions myself in SAI, where I am a Board of Directors member, as part of the ongoing revision of the SA8000 Standard. These include changing the Certifications. Instead of just receiving an SA8000 Certificate after a successful audit procedure, a workplace should get a scorecard that gives more information about the conditions in key areas and also tells where improvements must still be made.

The workers have to have a more important role in helping to monitor workplace conditions, which would normally be done through organising in trade unions and entering into a structures social dialogue with the employer. However, as long as freedom of association is respected, it is up to the workers themselves to form or join a union if they want to. Even if the workers would choose not to organise, arrangements can and should be made for worker engagement.

It should be made very clear what a social audit system is able to do, and what not. Construction safety and similar issues are outside this scope and this has to be clearly spoken out. A more detailed score card type of certification – when certifications are used – helps also to achieve this clarity.

The whole audit process requires more transparency. This is also a question that BSCI, SAI, GSCP and other influential partners in the CSR community need to look at, to find a common and uniform solution. All suppliers may not like this, but they just need to adapt to the inevitable.

When BSCI celebrates its first ten years in Brussels this coming Tuesday and Wednesday, Jan Eggert, Lorenz Berzau, Olga Orozco and the whole team have all reason to be proud of the results that they have achieved. Together with UK-based ETI and the French large retailer group, BSCI has made corporate social responsibility in supply chains into a mainstream and core concern for Europe’s multinationals and other traders. Acknowledging that very much is still left to do, conditions in supply chains would be worse if BSCI would not have existed.

Julkaistu

Social campaigners should take a thinking time-out and seek cooperation with the CSR community instead of conflict

Last week saw two important campaigner statements that were highly distrustful and suspicious about business sector commitments and remarkably negative towards corporate social responsibility programmes and initiatives. Both referred to last year’s devastating factory fires in Pakistan and Bangladesh. The Clean Clothes Campaign CCC came out with a new booklet, and former International Labor Rights Forum ILRF Executive Director Bama Athreya expressed her opinions in a Huffington Post blog article.

Fatal Fashion is a Clean Clothes Campaign CCC publication that has been written together with SOMO, a research institute close to this Netherlands-based organisation. The booklet is not really a research report even if it contains much essential information on the two tragic factory fires and the follow up by buyers and different stakeholders. It is equally much a statement by the authors on how they would like to see the follow up.

It should be no surprise that global buyers are severely criticised in the CCC booklet, and there are surely valid reasons for that. Much of the factual criticism is correct, although a fundamental mistrust against business filters through also when some targeted companies have clearly shown that suppliers and agents have acted in ways which have been both unauthorised and hidden from the buyers.

To lay the blame for the fires on global buyers cannot be correct as the final responsibility is with factory owners and managers, and the government authorities. Another thing is then  that the setup of these business relations requires serious attention and probably some very fundamental changes to lower or even remove the risk for a future tragedies like these taking place. It is also fair to ask buyers to show the necessary solidarity by contributing in substantial ways to compensating victims and their families. We know that this has nomally been done although there may be discussion and differing opinions about amounts and modes of support.

As so often is the case, generalisations and conclusions are regrettably drawn with a free hand. Faults and even wrong behaviour in individual cases and by individual companies are turned into sweeping allegations. This moves too much focus to accusations and the many concrete and serious suggestions for improving factory conditions don’t get the attention that they should.

Of course, the global supply chains that provide cheap goods for consumers in developed markets are fundamentally problematic and frequently unfair. There is, however, no rolling back of this international trading, that would not even be the right thing to demand. What we need to work for is that the economic participation of less developed regions and countries comes with a clear and strong dimension of human rights and social well-being.

Much effort has gone into convincing business that this must be a serious concern in all supply chain activities. Social campaigners have been instrumental in bringing about this thinking. Important contributions have been made within many companies themselves, large and small, where ethically motivated managers and workers can take pride in their achievements. What starts to be mainstream thinking among world brands and retailers – with all shortcomings that still exist – has not been there for long.

Initiatives such as Social Accountability International SAI which was founded in 1997 have played an incredibly important role in raising awareness and providing business with the tools to protect and defend human rights and social conditions in their supply chains. This engagement by SAI president Alice Tepper Marlin and the SA8000 people has actually been there much longer, with the Council on Economic Priorities (CEP) founded already in 1969. The tone that some campaigners are using when referring to this leading multistakeholder initiative, where also trade unionists participate, tells more about themselves than about the issues that they want to raise.

No other organisation has addressed the shortcomings of CSR initiatives and supply chain social auditing as seriously as SAI and Social Accountability Accreditation Services SAAS have recently done. To bluntly reject the importance of the changes that are already on their way, without presenting any alternatives, is not a credible approach.

I admit that I am concerned over how the tense labour relations in the United States affect the global scene as well. Bama Athreya, who used to lead the International Labor Rights Forum ILRF, wrote in a Huffington Post blog article last week :

” The numerous private monitoring and certification groups that have crowded this space in recent years need to get out of the way, and recognize that competing for brands’ business in Bangladesh will not help to solve the bigger challenges.  They need to cede the space to the US government here.  Consumer-facing advocacy groups need to provide consumers with information about which companies are following the leader, and which are refusing to play. “

Although it deals with the aftermath of the Pakistan and Bangladesh fire catastrophes, the pitch of this message cannot be misunderstood. Buying brands and retailers ” that have crowded this space in recent years need to get out of the way ” and make space for the U.S. Government and campaigner organisations to take care of the challenges.

It is interesting to note that neither CCC nor Ms Athreya pay much attention to the role of trade unions, which after all are the only legitimate representatives for workers when it comes to labour relations. If employers are removed from the scene to create space for governments and social campaigners, then also unions will lose an important part of their influence. This is not a new issue, there have always been some tension between advocacy and campaigner organisations, and trade unions, when these NGO’s have been tempted to take on union roles without being accountable to the workers.

There may be domestic reasons for referring to the U.S. Government, and of course it would be very positive if the Obama administration could give active and effective support for improving the factory fire safety situation in these and other countries.

We have good experiences of this from the time when President Bill Clinton’s Secretary of Labor Robert Reich committed the United States Government to helping end child labour in the production of footballs – soccer balls – in Pakistan’s Sialkot. Here it was UNI Global Union who asked for support, preparing for negotiations with the International Football Federation FIFA.

But still, suppliers and their management are the ones who need to make the concrete changes, and usually also change their approach to their workers. Without clear messages and often even pressure from the brands and retailers who buy and bring their products to the markets this will not happen.

Maybe the author is also unaware that brands and retailers are indeed cooperating when it comes to social supply chain conditions. This was among the main reasons for creating the Global Social Compliance Programme GSCP, and we also see it in the preparations for coordinated activities to address these fire safety issues.

Corporate social responsibility schemes and initiatives can never be a substitute for constructive and fair labour relations between employers and workers and their trade unions. Social audits can never play the role of freely negotiated collective agreements and supportive labour legislation, and proper government oversight. In fact, schemes and initiatives should even stronger than now encourage and promote the development of these internationally agreed ways of protecting workers human, economic and social rights.

There are important parts of the world where the employers and workers, for various reasons, have not been able to get together on these issues. Outside involvement – including a strong engagement of buying brands and retailers through their social responsibility approaches – continues to be needed.

Both global and national trade unions could make much more active use of the declared commitment of leading brands and retailers to require their suppliers to respect freedom of association and the right to collective bargaining. After all, these commitments are a result of a longstanding and continuing engagement by trade unionists in developing these codes, standards and activities.

Telling the global buyers that they are not serious and may as well forget codes, initiatives and capacity building activities among their suppliers would be irresponsible. I am sure that at the end of the day, only a small minority of the people engaged in campagn organisations would take this approach. That US-based SAI and its SA8000 Standard are now singled out also by some who continue their engamenet with often less stringent and more business dominated initiatives is surely related to domestic labour relations issues and not so much part of a broader campaign against CSR.

In a world where governments were unable to introduce even a modest social dimension into their world trade agreements it would be mistaken to think that they can now take over the responsibility. They can and even should increase their engagement, also to set a level playing field for business that requires and also allows for responsible behaviour, but voluntary activities will still remain the key element.

Cooperation is indeed necessary to achieve real change for the better. Business must accept to engage with trade unions and social campaigners, and these need to accept a pragmatic cooperation with business even when the situation at home may be difficult or hostile. To make disadvantaged supply chain workers and their families suffer from adversarial labour relations in developed countries is not acceptable.

Coming from the trade union movement myself, I cannot see any logic or benefit in rejecting voluntary commitments by global brands and retailers to contribute to the respect for  human rights and decent working conditions in supplier workplaces. Correctly applied this would even help union organising efforts. In developed economies where trade unions are sufficiently strong and well established and where tripartite cooperation brings together governments and social partners, this business driven approach to labour relations is of course not needed and should not be applied.

It does not take long to see that an important aim of the CCC publication is to solicit participation and and funding for their 2011  fire safety project. This initiative which also ILRF and some other North American campaigners are part of and that some key Global Union Federations are supporting has failed to attract enough commitments from buying companies. Only German retailer Tchibo and US garment group PVH have signed the project agreement with these campaigners.

I would hope that some additional buying companies could find it possible to back up the campaigner driven Bangladesh fire safety project, to ensure a broad stakeholder participation and to lay the ground for a constructive cooperation and united front of the global community. It would not be good to allow a competitive situation emerge on the ground.

I cannot see any major differences between the 2011 project developed by social campaigners and the work programme that should soon emerge from the cooperation between buyer brands and retailers. If everyone would take a pragmatic approach to these challenges and lay aside ideological motives or possible second agendas, a broad cooperation should be easy to achieve.

I hope that IndustriALL, the Global Union Federation which represents the workers directly concerned, and which has stepped in forcefully on their behalf, can play a convening role in bringing about this joint action.

After the two devastating garment factory fires in Pakistan and Bangladesh it is clear that much of the immediate focus will be on worker safety, without losing sight of the need for other improvements as well. Many buyers themselves as well as social responsibility initiatives such as WRAP, SAI and BSCI have already stepped up their existing awareness and capacity building activities. Companies such as French Carrefour and Swedish H&M have been among those who have already done much concrete work in this field and whose experiences will surely be very useful to draw on.

Structural changes and improvements must follow as soon as possible to make the physical conditions at workplaces safe. This is one of the most important tasks for the buying brands and retailers that are already working together with GIZ, the German Development Angency, to develop concrete action.

The Clean Clothes Campaign and other involved campaigners should seriously consider whether it would not be useful to work together with buying brands and retailers and seek cooperation rather than conflict. The challenges in Bangladesh and Pakistan are of such a magnitude that only a tripartite cooperation in the countries themselves with concrete and broad support from the outside can make a real difference.

Finally – let us not forget that the national partners in Pakistan and Bangladesh – governments, suppliers, unions and other stakeholders – need to play a leading role in all of this. In Bangladesh, a tripartite cooperation has already been set up. This has to be possible also on the international level.

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

Supplier and auditor subcontracting should be more effectively controlled to ensure reliability of CSR

Corporate social responsibility initiatives should look closely at Wal-Mart’s new supplier policies, announced earlier this week. To get subcontracting under control is essential if they are to retain their credibility. Otherwise one can ask with much justification whether social audits, certifications or other reports are always really reliable.

When a supplier that has been audited and approved by a brand or retailer moves production to another site without even notifying the buyer, we are dealing with deception which also pulls the rug from under any social audits or certifications. This happened in Bangladesh when orders were moved without authorisation by a supplier to the Tazreen garment factory. A devastating fire at this workplace took over 110 lives last November.

Wal-Mart’s new instructions to suppliers should put an end to this kind of wild subcontracting. If a supplier gets caught, the game is over and the business relationship ends.

Problems will of course remain even if subcontracting comes under control. Supply chains can be long, from commodities to product components, before work reaches audited plants and factories. Tracing is difficult, but new RFID technologies should make it easier. Swiss specialist retailer Switcher, a leader in corporate responsibility, already enables consumers to trace the history of the garment which they buy by entering its label number on the company’s website.

Wal-Mart’s new rules are a major step in the right direction.

In Pakistan, where fire devastated the Ali Enterprises plant in September, leaving well over 200 garment workers dead, a private auditing firm had granted the factory an SA8000 Certification only weeks earlier. Neither SAI nor the controlling agency SAAS knew this. Also here, subcontracting was involved. The large Italian company had outsourced the social audit to a local contractor.

In both cases the system did not function and control was lost. Wal-Mart has acted swiftly, will the CSR schemes and initiatives and the social auditing community follow suit?

Auditing companies subcontracting out their social audits is reportedly common in the industry. In most cases this would probably not cause problems, and the audits be professional and correct. Still, there is the question of lacking controls, oversight and responsibility. The tragic catastrophes in Pakistan and Bangladesh should be reason enough for even radical action.

Schemes and initiatives should consider whether not also subcontractors would have to be authorised by the control structures that have been set in place. This also means that auditor training and competence would be better secured. There may also be countries where conditions are such that reliable auditing and this also certification is impossible.

Through my engagement in SAI, I have suggested  that the importance and status of theSA8000 certificates should be raised. The certificates should be securely printed and individually numbered, and the numbers should be registered centrally first when an empty certificate is given to a certification agnecy and then again when it issues the certificate to a supplier workplace.  This would tighten controls, define where responsibilities for certifications are,  and protect the system agains fraud and abuse.

I have also suggested that social auditing systems should consider learning from financial auditing, where auditors are both qualified and prepared to follow a company even between the audits. This would also mean that management would have a discussion partner when taking corrective action and launching other remediation activities.

Yes there could be conflict of interest issues at times, but it would still be better than letting situations deteriorate between the snapshots that are taken during the days of audit. It would of course add to costs, but in many cases this investment would be necessary. On the other hand it will be supported by the ongoing work within GSCP to drive convergence of these schemes and initiatives and cut the number of audits through a built-in mutual recognition of reports and certificates.

All this does not mean that brands and retailers would be able to give up a direct involvement and monitoring of conditions. Already the UN Guiding Principles expect them to apply due diligence in their supply chains which not even the most reliable audit schemes can compensate.

The most important thing would still be to involve workers themselves and empower them to participate in making sure that conditions are correct. How this is done when there is no trade union in place requires careful consideration, to ensure that it does not become an alternative to workers’ right to regular social dialogue and collective bargaining.

Julkaistu

Wal-Mart’s harder line on supplier subcontractors could help open way for concrete improvements in Bangladesh factory fire safety

Wal-Mart’s harder line on suppliers that use subcontractors without the retailer’s approval is an important step in the right direction.

“Our message of zero tolerance is meant to get people’s attention,” Wal-Mart’s Vice President for Ethical Sourcing Rajan Kamalanathan says in today’s Wall Street Journal.

Of course, especially suppliers are supposed to listen carefully. Without informing the US retail multinational, one of them had placed part of an order at the now infamous Tazreen garment factory in Bangladesh, where over 110 workers perished in a devastating fire late last year.

Subcontracting arrangements are indeed one of the biggest problems for corporate social responsibility schemes and social auditing. A supplier factory may be in proper shape, but the conditions at subcontractors could then be completely different. Getting subcontracting under control is an important task.

The factories which produce for Wal-Mart will have to undergo obligatory fire safety control and comply with certain requirements before they are allowed to supply the US-based retailer. They will also be required to have secondary exits from all floors, and their electrical systems have to be safe. There will also be regular follow up checks, and closer monitoring.

The observations made by Turkish fire safety expert Dundar Sahin when he visited a range of Pakistani garment factories last autumn on behalf of Social Accountability International SAI ( SA8000 ) confirmed that there is indeed much to do to ensure worker safety in these plants.

To just dismiss the measures by the world’s largest retailer like some campaigners have done in their first comments is not constructive. Cartainly, both Wal-Mart and other buyers from the Bangladeshi garment industry will have to be prepared to carry part of the costs for making workplaces safer. The Wall Street Journal that the retailer is looking at creating a fund or a revolving line of credit to support these necessary investments. This should act as an example also for other large buyers to follow

The basic reasons for poor conditions for garment workers in countries like Bangladesh and Pakistan are bedded into the global supply chain system itself. Low prices in consumer countries are too often based on poor working conditions in the producing regions. This will not change overnight, but the reactions to the recent fire catastrophes in Pakistan and Bangladesh can perhaps launch a general development in a positive direction.

Also, we should not forget that these industries are essentially important for the producing regions and countries to develop their own economies and  offer livelihoods for their people. This cannot be done at the cost of safe workplaces, decent working conditions and human dignity. It is clear that whatever differences there may be, this is now generally accepted by both the global business community and other stakeholders. Now is the time to work effectively to promote these principles without compromising the task by letting other considerations override it. This concerns equally the business sector as it does trade unions, campaigners and others.

Finally, once again some campaigners are calling for making social audit reports public. This would effectively destroy all workplace auditing. Confidentiality of all audits and reports is a condition for workers and others to be able to speak out about workplace problems, and a necessity to protect those that do it. Campaigner mistrust against business should not lead to destroying what may often be the only existing instrument to monitor the reality in these vulnerable supply chains, and thus create a basis for a concrete improvement of working conditions.

It will be both interesting and important to follow how the Wal-Mart initiative will transform into a broad action and to a changing reality on the ground in countries like Bangladesh.

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.