Avainsana: Trade unions

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

Historical Bangladesh Accord is a great achievement but much work still remains before the project is up and running

To build up the Accord on fire and building safety in Bangladesh and to mobilise an important group of leading global garment retailers to participate in the work is a great achievement. Many people, organisations and companies have worked hard on this historical project. Still, without the engament and skills of IndustriALL General Secretary Jyrki Raina and his team this would not have come about. Well done. Now the work will begin on translating the Accord to real and concrete action. This will not be an easy task, but the solid commitment of this broad alliance will surely help. The very recent interview in Financial Times with H&M CEO Karl-Johan Persson should help set the tone for this cooperation between parties that have often been and still often are engaged in mutual differences and conflicts on many other issues. This should not be allowed to weaken the joint efforts for the Bangladeshi workers. It is of course regrettable that world’s largest retailer Wal-Mart did not join the Bangladesh building and fire safety Accord, nor did most other US retailers, stating that they cannot accept the complaints resolution clause because they are afraid of getting drawn into court processes with stakeholders in the litigation-happy US. This may be so, or not, but I would believe that on this particular issue that the Accord deals with, the probability of such conflicts arising would be very small. Nobody has an interest to detract from the real job that has to be done, and if someone would, I am convinced that other partners would not accept that. Still, this should not lead to giving up – the world’s largest retailer itself declares that they are prepared to use the 45 day period which is foreseen in the Accord to try find solutions. I hope that a solution can be found through serious and concrete discussions. It is important to note that Wal-Mart’s statement is very much different from what the US retailer association said, which was outright negative, hardly hid their aversion against working with unions, and showed that the politicians of that organisation have not understood what is at issue. There is a job to do now, and focus should be on that. A good basis for discussions with Wal-Mart should be their public commitment to get 100 per cent their own supplier base in order through fire safety controls within six months, and their commitment to immediately go public about any factory where dangerous conditions are found. There is surely still a credibility issue, but this new announcement and the concrete follow up on the ground in Bangladesh should remove a lot of the uncertainties. With its huge resources, Wal-Mart would be an important partner in or at least to the Alliance, pulling with it other US retailers as well. If Wal-Mart would put its weight behind the proposal by the H&M CEO Karl-Johan Persson to make sure that minimum wages in Bangladesh would be raised and remain at decent levels, it would be really important. I hope that this is now a window of opportunity that will be used by all those involved, making this historical initiative work.

Julkaistu

GSCP India Workshop on Capacity Building shows importance of joining buyers, suppliers and stakeholders in work for human rights and decent labour conditions

Lack of knowledge and skills is a major reason for many working life problems, also in global supply chains. It is clearly not the only reason, but perhaps more common and important than we often think. All of us who have concrete experience from labour relations know that adding to knowledge and skills usually has a positive effect on workplace attitudes, which helps to improve labour conditions and raise productivity.

The GSCP Workshop on Capacity Building which started in India today is a good example of how bringing together buying brands and retailers with their suppliers can promote respect for human rights and decent working conditions. There are many stakeholder organisation present as well, who are dedicated to human rights and social justice, including trade union representatives from IndustriALL Global Union.

Everyone may not always agree on how things could best be improved, but there should be a fair consensus about objectives, which invites to dialogue and cooperation.

When also commercial buying conditions take into account social standards, capacity building plays a central role in enabling employers and workers to set things right through mutual respect, dialogue and cooperation.

I participated myself in a regional GSCP country meeting in Shenzhen in China about a year ago, where it was the buyer companies who met to discuss these issues. What struck me as something very positive was the openness that these professional buyers showed to including social considerations in their supplier relations. I am not naive, we are only at a starting point and much will have to happen before the global trade systems support a fair treatment of workers and their families.

Of course I am partial as well. To be member of the GSCP Advisory Board would make no sense unless I supported the aims, objectives and work of this common CSR and environmental standards platform. More than that, I could not have involved myself in this work had it not been for the strong support of commerce trade unions from all over the world, when I was head of UNI Commerce Global Union. The unions understood that to defend and promote their rights, the supply chain workers needed the support of CSR schemes and initiatives. Of course, the final trade union aim is that employers and workers can engage in an organised social dialogue and collective agreement relationship, supported by effective government authorities and a developed labour legislation.

GSCP has now completed its basic toolkit which can be used by companies, CSR initiatives and schemes, and others, to establish and ensure correct human rights and social conditions in supply chains. All this material is freely available on the www.gscpnet.com website, an amazing resource for all those who want to approach these issues in a serious and professional way. They can be used for benchmarking, but also as inspiration and guidance for improvement. Through the GSCP Equivalence Process, companies and others can make sure that their approaches and work is compatible with the highest existing standards.

The GSCP Workshop in India shows the way that companies as well as codes, schemes and initiatives can move forward from social auditing to capacity building, and remediation. GSCP has made a major contribution to driving upward convergence of standards and mutual recognition of social audits. This should now make it possible to direct more attention and resources to where they can really make a difference – at the supplier workplaces.  Hopefully the workshop will help to generate both further capacity building and the use of this added capacity for the benefit of supply chain workers who still so often toil under poor conditions.

Julkaistu

Spain’s big store retail employers need to bring their labour relations to EU levels and respect freedom of association

Large retailers  in Spain should take a look in the mirror, and then start to get their labour relations act together. The recent deal with management controlled ‘trade unions’ makes bad worse for hundreds of thousands of low-paid workers already badly squeezed by the crisis.

When I was head of UNI Commerce Global Union, the labour situation in some of the department store and hypermarket companies in Spain stuck out as something of a sore thumb. Violations of workers rights and disregard for freedom of association were part of the daily lives at many workplaces.

We see the same now when large retailers have signed collective agreements with sweetheart unions to cut wages, extend working hours, and take away other benefits. Once again it is the same employers’ organisation ANGED that is there doing the job for them, influenced by the country’s largest retailer El Corte Ingles, and some others.

Sad, because in supply chain corporate social responsibility this huge department store and hypermarket retailer is one of the most active companies.

To make some of the most disadvantaged workers pay for the country’s crisis economy is highly unfair. Recently we saw reports of huge undeclared payments from large Spanish companies to leaders of the governing Popular Alliance AP party of Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy. It is difficult to accept that at the same time workers at the lowest income levels are squeezed even more by huge and profitable companies.

The two Spanish commerce trade unions FECOHT-CCOO and FECHT-UGT estimate that the agreement signed with FETICO and FASGA could cost some 230,000 workers an average of 10 percent of their incomes. Almost all of them are low-paid and very many on temporary contracts, frequently in part- time jobs.

For many years, I worked with the Spanish unions – and also many constructive European employers – to try to change this situation and to establish normal European labour relations.

At times we made real progress. Still, the results could finally not be sustained, particularly because of the determination of a hard core of them to keep up old bad practices. Politics also played a role. It was not difficult to see the close ties between Spanish management and the party of the conservative right.

Trade unions that re-emerged in the 1970s after decades of harsh repression during the Franco dictatorship had to be stopped, that was the target. In most sectors  old organising traditions and the new political environment made this impossible. Not so in retailing which lacked strong union traditions. Here El Corte Ingles and some others moved fast to fill the vacuum left by the Francoist vertical structures, creating new ‘sweetheart ‘unions’. As large foreign retailers began entering later, they were usually pulled into the same fold.

This anomaly still exists in Spain. The two ‘yellow unions’ Fetico and FASGA cooperate openly with management and are often used by the employers as willing tools. All attempts to change this from within have decisively been cut short through management intervention, and independence-minded Fetico leaders have lost their positions. I met some of them during my UNI years, but their plans – however serious they then were – proved to be impossible to realise.

I also visited department stores and hypermarkets during works council elections and could see some of the blatant violations taking place. I saw voters intimidated, candidates put under pressure to sign off, and the polling secret violated.

Twice I witnessed harsh supervisor pressure on workplace candidates, making them break down in tears and remove themselves from the ballots, afraid of losing their jobs. The aim was to disqualify the union list through making the number of candidates fall under set limits.

In a large department store workers had to walk up through a narrow staircase to the polling station, passing groups of young men – reportedly from FASGA – in dark suits standing along the way. Voters had to pick up ballot papers from stacks on a desk where an election board was sitting, different colours for the different union lists. No wonder if many of them chose to pick up only the one with the employer’s favourite colour.

Of course, I met and saw companies and workplaces where there was a reasonably honest competition between the organisations and their candidates, also some where Fetico got the biggest support. So there is no reason that this should not work in Spain as it does in the rest of the EU?

Differences and labour conflicts between employers and trade unions are normal and acceptable, and most countries have clear rules on how to resolve them. Sometimes employers are unreasonable, and at other times trade unions are unrealistic in their demands. This is normal as well, and usually a result will finally be found – perhaps not popular with either party, but they can live with it.

We have to remember that this is not a political organisation game, but about how human beings at workplaces are treated. Pressure and intimidation of workers and workers’ representatives is not only illegal and a violation of International Labour Standards. It is also ethically and morally wrong.

I will not go into the details of the agreement itself. My view is that it is both unwise and unfair to clamp down even harder on those who are already worst hit by Spain’s economic troubles and extreme unemployment. This will not help recovery or promote the social peace and political stability that both Spain and the European Union need.

It is time to reflect and turn around the bad spiral of deteriorating labour relations in this important sector of Spanish retailing. The responsibility for this is now clearly with the employers, both domestic and foreign. They need to take steps to recall their local human resources management and this particular association to order.

Julkaistu

Brands and retailers should now disclose concrete measures for Bangladesh and Pakistan fire safety and respond positively to IndustriALL cooperation invite

Where are the real, concrete and visible commitments from brands and retailers to help deal with the factory fire safety problems in Bangladesh, Pakistan and other countries? Promises and declarations have been heard, but we are well into 2013 and now is the time for more concrete information.

A company that has shown how one can move fast also on big issues is world’s largest retailer Wal-Mart. It did not take long for them to change their own supply chain conditions, tightening up controls. Also other steps were announced, including support for factories that need to make changes in their fire safety setup. The rapid reaction raises expectations that we will soon see action on the ground.

To be fair, also some others have told the public on what they have been doing and intend to continue with. These include GAP, unfairly and incorrectly in the teeth of US activists because they have gone their own way instead of giving support to the campaigners and their project. H&M and Carrefour have already done much, training management and workers in hundreds of factories. Inditex is now joining IndustriALL in project cooperation.

Perhaps interestingly, when I was Head of UNI Commerce I did negotiate Global Framework Agreements with all three companies – H&M, Carrefour and Inditex, and have good experiences of the social dialogue and cooperation with all of them.

Of course, we need to see much more than training and awareness raising. Physical factory conditions will need to be considerably improved. There will be big implications all the way up to buying conditions and supply arrangements.

Others have been more quiet about their activities, plans and commitments, to say it mildly.

Still, there is much going on, particularly in the fields of training and awareness raising. Craig Moss of Social Fingerprint just came back from a session in Bangladesh, and we see how WRAP and others have been active as well. But where are the brands and retailers themselves, when it comes to telling about the support for the garment industry in problem countries to ensure wokplace safety?

A particular problem is Pakistan. We cannot allow that the country’s difficult security situation leads to less attention being paid to worker safety and other conditions at supplier sites. Although reliable social audits and certifications may be impossible to continue, solutions have to be found that guarantee decent conditions for working people.

Spain’s Inditex – mother company of Zara and other clothing brands – has joined the garment workers in IndustriALL Global Union in an effort to bring about positive change in Bangladesh. This is a welcome move by a responsible retailer, but we need fast follow up also from others.

When I took the initiative last autumn in both Social Accountability International SAI and the Global Social Compliance Programme GSCP to launch action in Pakistan and Bangladesh, an important objective was to build a large coalition where everyone can participate, both business and stakeholders. IndustriALL’s recent announcement shows a similar aim. This global union’s resolve to lift up also other sub-standard working conditions to levels of human decency should stop nobody from supporting and joining.

I know that many brands and retailers – and CSR schemes and initiatives – are discussing and planning concrete activities right now. It should not be difficult to combine these plans with the IndustriALL approach. Fast action is now needed.

I would like to see talks between these leading and responsible brands and retailers, and IndustriALL, to help find a common effective approach. This large global union federation reaches out in a constructive way and business must respond positively. Other conflicts of interest, which surely will continue, cannot be allowed to hinder strong common measures for the human rights of these vulnerable supply chain workers.

The public needs to know how the international business community and its stakeholders are standing up to their promises. I have worked since many years with large brands and retailers, and often been frustrated by what seems to be almost an obsession by many of them to avoid any kind of publicity.

Social media has changed the world of information and the old approach to be quiet and hope that things go away does not work anymore. If nothing else, companies should look at Wal-Mart’s fast reaction as a good example on how to make sure that information gets out and becomes part of the discussion that goes on.

If also European brands and retailers had been more active and alert, and read the situation correctly, parts of the European Parliament Resolution on Bangladesh Fire Safety could have looked different. Just to mention one example.

The brands and retailers and those who coordinate these fire safety programmes for them have to get their information activities in order. To keep the public informed is an important part of the job. Until now, they are underperforming.

The buying public has the right to know what is being done to help avoid disasters such as those that cost the lives of hundreds of Pakistani and Bangladeshi workers under appalling circumstances.

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.