Jan
Furstenborg
Geneva, Switzerland
j.furstenborg@bluewin.ch
7 October
2012
New paternalism or
worker empowerment ?
SAI and supply chain responsibility in times of global crisis
- About this discussion paper
“ Social Accountability
International’s shared vision is of decent work everywhere—sustained by
widespread understanding that decent work can secure basic human rights while
benefiting business. “
The SAI website www.sa-intl.org
When the President of Social Accountability International SAI
(SA8000) Alice Tepper Marlin asked me to prepare a presentation for the SAI
Advisory Board about the changing operation environment where we were, nobody
could imagine that only days later would we experience the tragic and
catastrophic factory fire at Ali Enterprises in Karachi, Pakistan.
The fire that cost the lives of 300 workers once again drew
attention to the serious shortcomings in working and employment conditions in many
of the countries where products are made for the global supply chains of brands
and retailers all over the world. The factory had received an SA8000
Certificate from an auditing firm that was accredited to do this, bringing the
disastrous event very concretely to the hearts and minds at SAI as well.
Of course, SAI bears no responsibility for this catastrophe
hitting the workers at Ali Enterprises. But it is clear that something went
seriously wrong when it comes to the SA8000 audit and certification, negatively
affecting the credibility of the whole CSR approach and the various schemes and
initiatives that serve it. This could have happened to any scheme or
initiative, but as it came to concern an SA8000 Audit and Certification, it is
the task of primarily SAI to find out
what really happened and where the system failed to uncover the truth about the
conditions at this factory on the day that catastrophe stuck.
There was no way that SAI or Social Accountability
Accreditation Services SAAS could have known of the shortcomings of this
Certification that was granted by Italian auditing firm RINA. But accepting
that SA8000 or any other certification can never be perfect, we must together
with RINA and others concerned address all possible problems that can continue
to undermine the reliability of the system.
Let me also say that it is regrettable that possible buyers
at Ali Enterprises – if such still exist in addition to the German retailer
that has come forward – have chosen not to come out in the public. They could
play an important contributing role both in supporting the victims and their
families, and in the joint efforts that are now needed to find out where
changes must be made to hinder a repetition of what happened. Neither SAI nor
SAAS have any information as to which buyers could possibly be involved. All
corporate members and companies represented on the SAI Advisory Board have
informed that they are not the company’s customers.
There is also a need to go further and deeper into how SAI
and the entire SA8000 system should be developed, and a thorough analysis of
the Ali Enterprises fire will contribute to this. A full review of SAI, SA8000
and the work that we are doing is as important as ever, and has become even
more urgent after this tragic event.
Of course, the originally planned document dealing with the
corporate social responsibility landscape and how SAI could position itself for
the future has been affected by this terrible event. I have edited it heavily
during the last days, and left out the originally planned brief presentation
intended for this AB meeting. Instead there is now a background paper to read
and hopefully to use in further planning and discussions as well as in the
related decision-making processes.
In the spring of 2011, I wrote a document for SAI on
stakeholder relations. This was partly to draw conclusions from my experiences
from the Dolefil issue where SAI came under the attack of ILRF and which raised
many questions about the social audit system, but also about the roles of SAI,
SAAS, audit companies, outside organisations and the different interrelations
between these. I will be quoting extensively from that paper, particularly
relating to our stakeholder relations.
The original heading of the reflections that I promised to
write for Bologna was “Supply chain
responsibility in times of global crisis: New paternalism or worker
empowerment?“ I think that it is still a valid question to ask.
I regret that the paper is rather long, but taking the
importance of the issues I prefer to go into some detail on various points. I
have also made some effort to write this so that in opens up not only to SAI
‘insiders’ but also to others with at least a basic knowledge about labour
relations and corporate social responsibility. The paper is not written for
publication, but also does not contain confidential material.
To understand some of my comments and conclusions in this
document it is probably useful to remember that my background is in the trade
unions where I held responsible positions both nationally and internationally
until I decided to take pre-retirement a few years ago. I represented UNI
Global Union, the largest of the international trade union organisations of
that time, on the Advisory Board of SAI almost since it was established. Later,
I have continued as a member of the SAI Board of Directors and as part of the
Founders Committee linked with the Advisory Board. I am also member of the
Advisory Board of the Global Social Compliance Programme GSCP, and have been
there since it was established.
All this plays in to how I look at things, but the paper is a discussion document, not a
proposal for measures to be taken, and not linked to my functions in SAI or
other connections.
Of course I accept that other people can come to quite
different conclusions about these issues. I did not have much time to prepare
this document, so there will surely be inconsistencies, and issues which could
have been addressed better. I am sure that the Advisory Board discussions in
Bologna will contribute to making many things more clear than they perhaps are
today.
- Corporate responsibility is expanding
– but is the commitment always serious ?
Environmental and social responsibility are expanding fast in
the corporate world. Where only a few frontrunners used to be engaged, this is
not becoming a mainstream activity. Brands, retailers and others who engage and
participate in global supply chains are all keen to show their customers that
they behave responsibly.
This expansion has brought lots of new players to the
corporate responsibility field. Schemes and initiatives now abound where SAI
and its SA8000 Standard was almost alone for many years. The largest companies
start to have their own codes of conduct and dedicated services and staff to apply
them. Consultancies thrive as well as auditors and other service providers.
New media and communications structures have been driving
much of these developments. The world is more transparent than ever and far
away living and working conditions are exposed on TV and computer screens
around the clock. Trade unions, campaigners and other non-governmental
organisations are able to mobilise public opinion as well as activists in ways
that were not possible in the old media world.
Politicians and their constituent entities have been fast to
see the significance of these changes. Public authorities on global and
regional as well as national levels have got engaged, determined to leave their
own fingerprint and secure their influence. Organisations as the UN, the OECD
and particularly the European Union have placed themselves visibly on the CSR
map, as have many others.
Governments and ‘outsourced’ organisations of an almost
semi-public nature – such as the International Standardisation Organisation ISO
– have created programmes and documents such as the Global Compact, the UN
Guidelines and the ISO 26000, which while having their own role to play and
being well intentioned are not adapted to auditing or other credible outside
verification. An expanding corporate social responsibility industry offers
services which regularly includes questionable use of non-auditable standards
and other means to ‘certify’ brands, retailers and others.
It is also difficult to assess which initiatives and schemes
are serious and intended to have a real impact on supply chain labour
conditions, which are excluding important elements of workers’ rights, and
which are there only to prop up the reputation of participating brands and
retailers.
Codes and standards range from the audited and monitored
certification based systems such as SA8000 to mere policy statements where a
management declaration may be the only concrete commitment. What a code or
standard really means is increasingly difficult to assess and consumers can
hardly be expected to differentiate between the serious and those which are
there as a window washing.
The catastrophic factory fire in Karachi, Pakistan in
September 2012 will surely force not only SAI but other CSR schemes and
initiatives as well to take a close look at their approaches and perhaps also
reconsider some of the things that they are doing today.
What is clear, however, is that there will continue to be a
need for audit based schemes to allow brands and retailers to set social
requirement on their suppliers and to work with these to ensure that human
rights and decent working conditions are secured.
It would be naïve to believe that this would not be seen by
many employers as an alternative to worker empowerment and collective
agreements. Freedom of association and the right to collective bargaining, such
as they are established by the Core Labour Conventions of the International
Labour Organisation ILO, are far from being universally accepted. While all
serious codes of conduct and social standards require respect for these
workers’ rights, they are among those that are most frequently violated. The
hardened labour relations climate and the economic pressures of the continued
crisis will surely add to these problems.
For SAI and other CSR schemes and initiatives it becomes
increasingly important to make clear that they are not an alternative to
mainstream legislation, collective agreement and social dialogue based working
life regulation but a complement and support.
As the emphasis and functions of these schemes and
initiatives is moving increasingly into working with the supply chain
stakeholders to support capacity building and remediation of concrete
conditions, this complementing and supporting role becomes even more evident.
Of course, this work alone is not effective unless the commercial buyer demands
on suppliers are set so that there is space to provide decent conditions for
the workers.
It stands clear that binding labour norms set by legislation
and collective agreements and secured by well organised local social partners
with a support of public authorities is the only effective and reliable way of
ensuring proper conditions for the workers. Regrettably, this is missing in
large parts of the world, and particularly in many of the countries which today
are the most important parts of global supply chains.
With all their shortcomings, social standards – whether
general such as SA8000, industry codes or even set by brands or retailers
themselves – are needed. A situation where emerging and developing economies
are pressed to compete with each other through low prices and attractive
supplier conditions and where no social requirements are imposed by buyers
would be disastrous for the workers.
It is equally clear that only empowering workers through
representative structures, which would normally be trade unions, can make sure
that the rules and agreements are respected. The fire catastrophe in Pakistan
was a stark reminder of this.
It is not the role of SAI or other CSR schemes and
initiatives to get involve in general labour relations issues outside their
core area of competence and activities, unless specifically asked so by
companies or industries concerned. To adopt more stringent requirements for
worker organising rights and possibilities and their empowerment at supplier
workplaces is hardly possible without drawing this clear line.
To consider whether there are credibility issues involved if
a brand and retailer requires this from their suppliers whilst questioning
whether their own staff should organise in trade unions should be left to
themselves to answer. For SAI and other CSR organisations it should be clear
that the supply chain workers whose conditions our work is trying to secure and
improve cannot be used as instruments to resolve issues in the home markets of
buyers.
The following is from my Facebook page, written on 3 October:
I have recently been working with corporate social responsibility in
global supply chains. Of course, there are companies who are more serious about
these, and those who are less, and these schemes are not a fully reliable
solution, only a second best option.
What is appalling though is that some non-governmental organisations are
really aggressively trying to question the right of buyer and retailer companies
to set social conditions for buying in developing or emerging economies.
Particularly if they are multinationals, they should not be allowed to support
decent conditions in their supply chains…
Far away from reality they are, these NGOs, not understanding that the
best alternative where unions and employers negotiate collective agreements
does not exist in many parts of the world. This would not be the first time
that the fight becomes more important than the issue itself, we remember this
from political life in years gone by.
On the positive side, not so many trade unions have sided with these
campaigners. Much better for them is to benefit from the freedom of association
commitments in the CSR codes and use this for providing organising opportunities
for the supply chain workers. At the end of the day, only worker empowerment
and collective agreements can guarantee decent work for all.
The experiences from the fire catastrophe at the Ali
Enterprises factory in Karachi and the obvious failure of the audit and
certification to ensure that conditions were safe and appropriate should lead
also to considering some very basic issues in relation to the SA8000 Standard
itself:
- Should SA8000 and related tools and
activities as well as SAI policies be revised so that instead of passively
respecting freedom of association and the right to collective bargaining we
would require an active approach to supporting worker empowerment and
structured social dialogue based labour relations as an element for certification
?
- Should the reference to ‘management
systems’ be toned down in favour of another description which implicitly
entails also workers empowerment and participation ?
- Should this be balanced by a clear
policy of focusing exclusively on global supply chain conditions except where
companies have selected to include also other functions in the SA8000 system.
- New initiatives in the CSR landscape
“ In 1997, SAI launched SA8000
(Social Accountability 8000) – a voluntary standard for workplaces, based on
ILO and UN conventions – which is currently used by businesses and governments
around the world and is recognized as one of the strongest workplace standards.
“
The SAI website www.sa-intl.org
When it was launched in 1997, the SA8000 Social Standard was
really the only one of its kind. It continued to be a lonely frontrunner for
many years, attracting broad support from both trade unions and other parts of
civil society. Relations with social campaigners were close and friendly in an
atmosphere where there was a strong feeling of a joint purpose and shared
objectives. Together with many trade unions and non-governmental organisations,
SAI was instrumental in putting the notion of corporate social responsibility
on the global political agenda. This finally lead to the world business
community understanding that they need to address the social effects of their
activities, and to a veritable proliferation of schemes and initiatives to
enable this work.
SAI and the SA8000 community has the reason and the right to
be proud of their commitments to these developments. The mainstream collective
agreement system has until now been unable to secure the respect for human
rights and decent conditions at work. Competition between important producer
countries wanting to offer attractive prices and supply conditions to global
buyers has effectively hindered governments from applying social requirements
to world trade and globalisation. With all their serious shortcomings,
corporate social responsibility schemes such as SAI and its SA8000 Standard
have emerged as the main concrete support for supply chain workers.
Todays large number of schemes and itiatives should not be
seen as a problem but as an opportunity. Unwanted effects such as too frequent
multiple audits by different initiatives and buyers, and the resulting audit
fatigue, are are issues that buyer companies as well as the schemes and
initiatives work actively to resolve. The common objective is to continue
moving both focus and resources from only auditing to concrete capacity
building and remediation in the supply chains.
Of the relative newcomers on the CSR scene, three stand out
as particularly interesting but also problematic:
- The
UN Guidelines
- The
ISO 26000
- The
Global Social Compliance Programme GSCP
The UN Guidelines
From a supply chain responsibility viewpoint, the UN
Guidelines introduce some major new elements. The responsibility of brands and
retailers to control their supply lines is now clearly defined, which surely
will have an important effect of increasing their attention to both
environmental and social initiatives and schemes.
Although the UN guidelines are not legally binding, they are
already influencing governments as well, which can be seen in the tightening up
of the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Companies. They have also visibly
influenced the UN Global Compact where a cleaning up operation intends to
restore some of its lost credibility.
Remarkably, while recognising freedom of association the UN
guidelines contain almost no reference to worker empowerment, trade unions or
social dialogue. One reason may be that including these issues would have
disabled the political consensus that has been necessary to ensure that they
were adopted by the United Nations community.
On this point, SAI has profiled itself in a very positive
way, by contributing actively when it comes to guidance on applying these good
principles. It is, however, important to make sure that these guidelines are
not seen as something that governments and business can adhere to through
declarations, and then forget about applying and respecting the good principles
in concrete situations.
Perhaps because of these guidelines, the Global Compact has
made serious efforts to tighten up its act. The list of companies that have
made commitments is being g cleaned up and there are now certain real criteria
for staying included. The fact remains, however, that this is and remains a
declaration – albeit a positive one – and does not credibly substitute for a
serious voluntary CSR initiative or scheme.
ISO 26000
The ISO 26000 was a problematic initiative from the very
beginning as it brought standardisation into the realm of labour conditions
which were regulated through legislation and collective agreements. Alerted by
SAI through a conversation between Alice Tepper Marklin and myself, the global trade unions reacted towards the
International Labour Organisation, and sparked discussions between the top
management of the two organisations, ILO and ISO. As a result ISO recognised
that standard setting takes places on a tripartite basis within the ILO, and
agreed not to set labour conditions through its standards. Instead ISO 26000
was developed as a management system oriented tool, which is not intended to be
audited against or certified.
These principles have not been entirely upheld. National
standardisation associations and a broad field of consultants and social
auditors have seen a potential goldmine in the ISO 26000 and started to develop
and apply auditing and even certification applications. Being an uncontrolled
activity without any stakeholder participation or support, and based on a
standard that is not suitable for this use, the ISO 26000 based auditing and
certification cannot be more than window dressing. Regrettably, as serious applying
of ISO 26000 can play a positive role indeed in supporting the social
responsibility management of companies and institutions.
GSCP
The Global Social Compliance Programme GSCP is a business
driven voluntary initiative to drive convergence of social and environmental
responsibility schemes in global supply chains and thus liberate resources from
multiple auditing to capacity building and remediation. Its ambition is to set
standards at a high level, with the GSCP reference code based on best practice from
multi-stakeholder and business schemes and initiatives. The reference code is
not auditable, nor is it certifiable, but is intended to be a benchmark and an
inspiration for companies and others to engage in protecting human rights and
improving the social conditions in global supply chains.
For voluntary initiatives and schemes, such as SAI, the GSCP
is the only available benchmarking instrument that can be used for building up
mutual recognition with other similar programmes. The reference code as well as
the tools that deal with the various elements related to its application cover
the same things as SA8000, and are on the same ambition levels. There are some
structural differences, such as management systems not being part of the GSCP
reference code itself. Instead they are raised in individual tools and
guidelines.
In addition to driving convergence – actually aiming at
upward harmonisation – GSCP has succeeded in signing up important numbers of
leading brands and retailers to participate in its work. As it does not conduct
audits or engage in capacity building or training on its own, organisations
such as SAI can benefit from the GSCP platform through making their own
services available.
This programme does not actively seek to grow the number of
companies that participate in its work. Already representing many of the
world’s largest and leading retailers and brands, GSCP is now focusing on
encouraging and promoting companies, schemes and initiatives to step up their
remediation and capacity building within the supply chains.
The on-going GSCP Equivalency Process, which will surely show
that SAI and SA8000 are at least equivalent with the GSCP reference codes and
tools will create a basis for this, as does the SAI participation in GSCP’s
Partner Network.
It is in SAI’s interest to support a development where the
minimum standards of the GSCP system are set on a demanding level.
- Are trade unions losing influence in their
traditional strongholds in the west ?
In a stagnant or shrinking economy, growth does not create
new wealth to share, and the conflict between capital and work becomes ever
more difficult. Corporate shareholders
and other investors put pressure on operative management to deliver returns and
defend share prices, which at the end of the day is reflected in lower
compensation levels for workers, dwindling social security and health care
provisions for their families, and raising unemployment. Attitudes between employers and unions are
now harder, with open hostility towards unions from the political and business
establishments, where the dominant mood is increasingly conservative. It is not
easy for unions to see what they gain, under these circumstances, from
supporting and participating in any cooperative schemes and initiatives.
The coverage of collective agreements continues to narrow. Long-term
union membership trends show sinking numbers, although some organisations have
also experienced a recent surge as workers seek protection in the crisis
economy. Public sector employees are often the most important groups as
industrial production falls or moves to emerging economies. Entire sectors see
union membership crash as their functions are privatised and outsourced, with
the new employers often overtly opposed to recognising trade unions. The
expanding private services industry remains poorly unionised.
The role of international unions has not followed the pace of
the global economy. They remain in a coordinating role, conducting campaigns
and projects on behalf of their member unions on national levels who are
carefully guarding that concrete bargaining powers remain with themselves.
Differences in living standards and labour legislation as well as in union
strength often make a fast increase of international coordination difficult, if
not impossible.
Their efforts to organise workers and industries through
campaigning and projects in emerging industrial economies and developing
countries have led to only limited results that have often not been stable. In
global supply chains, collective agreement coverage is often marginal.
It would be a mistake to think that trade unions would be
losing their influence, or that global and regional trade union structures
could be ignored. In fact, unions remain strong in many parts of the world,
such as in Western Europe where their position is built into the economic and
social systems. In these developed economies they are needed as a
counter-balance to business to make the political and social systems work .
In northern Europe, the position of trade unions is based on
actual membership numbers, established and accepted labour relations structures
and social dialogue traditions, and the broad support from large parts of the
political establishment. Also employers realise and accept that they need the unions
as social partners to ensure their own stability and competitiveness.
In southern Europe, the trade unions’ ability to mobilise
workers and close cooperation with parties left of the centre renders them a
significant position. In these countries they also have broad legislation based
rights, often not dependent on their representativeness.
Unions are also an important part of the common strategy and
structure of the European Union, through their formal social dialogue with
employers’ associations, and their influence over social legislation and
decisions.
In the emerging and developing economies, union importance
differs from one country to another. Whereas they have a strong position in
Brazil and South Africa, they are weak in India and the Middle East. Active and
militant unions can play an important role in countries such as Indonesia,
South Korea and Bangladesh, often with the support of unions and NGOs from
abroad. In China, worker organising and involvement is clearly rising both
through independent initiatives and structures and the All China Federation of
Trade Unions ACFTU.
- Is the changing economic environment
influencing trade union attitudes towards CSR ?
“ SAI recognizes that voluntary
compliance standards are only one part of what is needed to raise labor law
compliance around the world. To that end, SAI has developed training and
technical assistance programs to work on the broader context surrounding
compliance. Over its history, SAI has developed an array of services all geared
towards working with companies, trade unions, NGOs and governments to achieve
more socially responsible practices around the world. SAI pulls its
capabilities together in comprehensive capacity building programs, as well as
offering them on a stand-alone basis. ”
The SAI website www.sa-intl.org
Without expressing any judgment at this point, I think that
it is useful to see how CSR schemes and initiatives are conceived within the
trade union world, and what changes
there may have been in the attitudes. Doing this, one must bear in mind that
the trade union community is not homogenous and that opinions on how best to
defend worker interests can differ even sharply between different
organisations.
SAI is based in the United States, and while being global in
its reach, of course influenced by this as well. It is therefore useful to
underline that the campaign approach that many important U.S. trade unions have
increasingly chosen instead of a traditional social dialogue is not necessarily
applied in Europe, Japan, Australia and
other regions where trade unions are particularly active. Of course this
growing focus of campaigning reflects the surrounding anti-union sentiments as
well and is part of the polarisation where labour relations are getting
increasingly hostile.
As corporate social responsibility approaches are based on
management policies and auditing rather than collective bargaining and
collective agreements, many unions have begun to see them more as a risk than
an opportunity to promote their objectives. They are often viewed either with
great scepticism or with outright hostility, conceived as an attempt by big
business to marginalise worker participation and influence and replacing a
regulations-based approach with voluntary standards.
Corporate social responsibility initiatives and schemes such
as SAI have to take these changing opinions very seriously and consider what
action would be necessary to defend and strengthen their credibility with this
part of civil society. The whole concept of corporate social responsibility,
and the work that organisations such as SAI is doing, is still largely unknown
among the public at large, including trade union members and decision-makers.
The discussions among the corporate social responsibility consultants
and other members of the CSR community on websites such as Linked In show that
there is indeed a justification for these trade union concerns. The union
dimension or the need to empower workers themselves through trade unions, to
participate in regulating their employment and working conditions, is hardly
ever mentioned. Instead, it is completely focused on code and social audit
based approaches. Of course, freedom of association is part of all serious
codes and controlled in one or another way during audits, but whether it is
there because it has to be or as a serious aim for capacity building and
development is at best unclear.
The conclusion is that although trade unions themselves may
still be in an overall membership decline, their influence does not necessarily
diminish. There are many other developments in the global economy that play in
their favour and that they also make active use of. These unions have a clear
opinion : Even the most well intentioned corporate social responsibility
approach by the academic world or non-governmental organisations cannot replace
mainstream labour relations where workers are empowered to conclude collective
agreements and conduct social dialogue through genuine trade unions.
As an initial reaction to these issues that are at the heart
of the trade union concerns, SAI should speak out clearly, effectively and
unambiguously about its approach to the relation between the mainstream labour
relations system and the SA8000 Social Standard. This should also make it clear
for everyone what the SA8000 is not and will not become:
- The SA8000 system is not an
alternative to labour relations that empower workers themselves to influence
and negotiate their employment and working conditions through trade unions
engaged in social dialogue and concluding collective agreements with employers
and their associations.
- The SA8000 Standard is not a
replacement for collective agreements and labour legislation and the mechanisms
for applying them by local social partners and proper government authorities,
but supports the capacity building and remediation that aims at ensuring that
all workers enjoy the protection and benefits that international labour
standards and national legislation grant them, whatever is the higher.
- SAI and all other parts of the SA8000
system does not stop at requiring full compliance with the rights to freedom of
association and negotiating collective
agreements, but also demands and supports positive action to empower workers
correspondingly.
- SAI should take a clear positive stand
on Global Framework Agreements as an effective way of supporting worker
empowerment also in global supply chains, and seek an active cooperation with
Global Union Federations and willing employers in promoting these through its
own capacity building and remediation.
By being clear and active on these points, SAI can once again
show its leadership in developing the concept of corporate social
responsibility so that it responds both to corporate needs and trade union
expectations. Without wishing at all to marginalise other stakeholders, one
should accept that the social partners in working life have particular
responsibilities and rights that SAI must fully take into account in its work.
- Trade unions and campaigners
The relation between trade unions and campaigners is an
ambivalent one. On one hand, unions do often benefit from the direct or
indirect support of campaigns, and at times they even knowingly use them for
their aims. Unions themselves have initiated or launched campaigns and
established and financed campaign organisations, particularly in the United
States, but also in the United Kingdom. Some of those that are targeting
Wal-Mart with the objective of getting the company to allow unionisation of its
personnel in the United States are an example of this, as is similar union-led
campaigning that tries to force British multinational retailer Tesco to open up
for unionisation and collective agreements in its United States stores.
There are also examples which show a strained relation
between trade unions and campaign organisations. To take an example, a
commercial workers’ union does not always welcome campaigner criticism of a
unionised employer for something that it considers to be incorrect.
Particularly, it is adverse employment effects that could be the reason for
this, as well as the basic loyalty towards one’s own employer, which is quite
common in the European retail sector.
As works councils play an important role above all in Europe,
they can be expected to get more and more involved by companies that are
targeted by campaigners. Early experiences from European Works Councils have
highlighted major differences between some campaigners and the workers of the
targeted companies.
Another reason for disagreement and possible conflicts can be
that campaign organisations claim to speak for workers whom the trade union
correctly consider to be under its responsibility. This has frequently been an
issue between global union federations and some campaigners who have claimed to
be advocates for the rights of workers in particular industries, companies or
workplaces. When a campaign has been distinctly politically motivated and
negative towards enterprises, unions have at times either distanced themselves, or even ignored or denounced
them.
Trade unions are not civil society or non-governmental
organisations such as any others, but have specific rights and roles that are
clearly defined by ILO and International Labour Conventions. As collective
agreements cannot be substituted by social codes, trade unions cannot be
substituted by campaigners or other non-governmental organisations, however
much they claim to be advocating for workers and their rights.
- Campaigner involvement with SAI and
the SA8000 system
“ The whole system is flawed,” said
Scott Nova, executive director of the Worker Rights Consortium, a monitoring
group based in Washington that is financed by American universities. “This
demonstrates, more clearly than ever, that corporate-funded monitoring systems
like S.A.I. cannot and will not protect workers. ”
The New York Times 19 September 2012
“ While SAI claims that its mission
is to advance the rights of workers around the world, what SAI really does is
protect the reputations of apparel brands around the world,” Nova told Here
& Now’s Robin Young.
Here and Now 2 October 2012
Civil society involvement through social campaigns is not
new. The abolition of slavery and the introduction of equal voting rights for
women were early themes for successful campaigning. In the 1960’s, opposition
to colonialism and the Vietnam War sparked popular movements all over the
western world. More recently, Greenpeace and other environmental organisations
have showed their convening power and determination to bring about changes.
Amnesty International and numerous national federations keep up pressure on
countries to respect human rights and dignity.
Not only governments are pressed by campaigners to be more
transparent and responsible. Also the business world and investors are
increasingly in the public eye as globalisation of the world economy continues
to grow their influence.
The sprawling corporate social responsibility community with
hundreds of schemes and initiatives has evolved as a direct or indirect result
of such campaigns. Some have their roots in campaigns themselves, supporting
their aims through codes and labels. Others are a response by enterprises,
aware of the need to respond voluntarily to demands from civil society.
Regrettably, there are also those who serve other more dubious aims and thus cannot
be considered serious.
Consumer awareness – but also increasing concern for these
questions within the corporate world itself – has been successfully influenced
by movements such as Fair Trade and Clean Clothes, to mention two of them.
Without an active civil society, social and environmental issues in global
supply chains would not be given the attention by retailers and brands as they
enjoy today.
The fundamental changes in communications infrastructures and
the easy and fast networking between people and their movements have placed
campaigns and campaigners in a position of power and influence. They can go out
with their message well aware that they reach their audience without censorship
or rebuttals, having previously been dependent on edited media which were often
influenced by the very companies that they campaigned against. The Internet
created a new environment for them which is now further enhanced by the
veritable explosion in social networking.
Of course, a campaign has to have a relevant and credible
content – or be otherwise interesting – to be influential and effective.
A campaign can emerge around a particular issue, which is of
concern for a group of people. This is often the case with planned measures or
actions that affect a neighbourhood or even a larger community, where residents
see the need to join forces to promote their views and interests. The urgency
and seriousness of their message weighs heavily when considering their
credibility.
Another way for campaigning to emerge is that an established
campaign organisation picks up an issue which it starts promoting. This is the
case with many campaigns related to brands and retailers and their
responsibility. The objectives can range from concrete demands on changes in
the way that the companies are working to much broader political aims, where
the enterprises are seen mainly as tools. The impact of this action is
dependent on a combination of the issue itself, its presentation and the
general credibility of the organisation promoting it.
When it comes to an ad hoc movement, a campaign message is
usually weighed and assessed on its contents and presentation, or thus on its
own merits.
Issues put forward by well-known campaign organisations are
not always scrutinised with the same carefulness as they have already
established their own particular degree of general credibility both with
followers and the public. When one of these organisations goes out with a call
for solidarity, its own circle of followers and sympathisers do not often see a
need to verify whether the issue or its presentation merit their support. But
also these campaigners have to be careful and aware that each new campaign
affects their overall reputation.
It is not always easy to recognise when a campaign wants to
bring about a concrete change in the conditions under which people work and
live, and when it has a broader objective of promoting political, economic and
social issues or values. It is not uncommon for social campaigning to have
their roots in the anti-imperialism that marked their strong emergence in the
1960’s. Sometimes the two objectives tend to be mixed in a way that makes it
complicated to know what they really want to achieve and where their priorities
are.
One should also not forget that there may well be a dimension
of protectionism in social campaigning that is related to global supply chains.
For campaigners, the interesting thing is to target companies
which have well-known brands and have made commitments which can then be
‘proved’ to be wrong. An anonymous trader or producer is not so interesting for
them, however much workers’ rights are violated. But for targeted global
retailers and brands, all deficiencies in the supply chains – and one can
always find those – are mercilessly exposed and then generalised in order to
discredit the behaviour of the entire company or even a whole industry, such as
retailing. We have many examples of this approach.
Questions have been asked about the important role that
certain companies have played in creating the GSCP even if they themselves have
poor if not even hostile relations with trade unions trying to organise their
personnel. Among these, Wal-Mart stands out because of its size, although it is
definitely not the only one.
Actually, I was under some pressure at the time that we as
UNI – a leading Global Union Federation – decided to join the GSCP advisory
board. The pressure did not come from affiliated trade unions, who felt that
using supply chain workers as an instrument for their own work in
industrialised countries would not be ethically correct. Instead, for instance
a well know European-based campaign organisation even went as far as
approaching leading affiliates to ask them to hinder my participation, Attempts
to stop us from working on supply chain issues were also made by non-retailers
as part of their influence struggle with the retail sector.
All experiences from GSCP over the years show that these
issues have not been allowed to play a role. There has been a remarkable
consensus between the corporate world and the stakeholders as to where this
programme is heading, and a genuine acceptance of its reference code that
includes among other issues a clear and unwavering support for freedom of
association and the right to collective bargaining. There has been no reason
for UNI to regret its engagement, and the organisation is still present on the
GSCP Advisory Board.
Sometimes this has led to think that recent attacks against
SAI and SA8000 are related to domestic political and labour objectives or
issues in the United States. They follow previous US campaigning related to
allegations of trade union rights violations in the Philippines, where actually
the campaigners themselves had tried to make questionable use of the SA8000
social auditing and Certification system to support an extreme left wing trade
union leadership. Finally, as workers
were able to express themselves in free elections, where this particular
unionist group was represented on the controlling government commission, the
campaigning collapsed. A huge majority of the workers at this large
agricultural workplace voted the previous leadership out and replaced them with
a more moderate trade union, in an election which even the losing group had to
accept.
The attacks against SAI and the CSR system have indeed been
largely populist. They have aimed at making believe that these CSR approaches
are there to mislead the consumers and the public and have suggested that they
should be abandoned. They have also been openly related to general campaigning against the particular US based
multinationals. In a way that is typical for populists, these campaigners have
not been able to propose any concrete alternatives to be put in place of those
that they want to destroy.
As to trade union support, one can note that it usually comes
from unions that are very much campaigning oriented. Those which focus on
membership growth, social dialogue and collective agreements have not had the
same interest in these negative campaigns but instead seen a value in the support
that CSR commitments by large retailers and brands have given.
All this is not to say that all campaigners or campaigns are
like this. There are numerous examples of real anomalies and abuses which would
have continued to exist, had it not been for active campaigners. It is
regrettable when a poorly planned or conducted campaign, or a campaign that is
not fully honest, and thus conceived as unfair and sometimes also clearly
politically motivated, hurt the credibility and effectiveness of urgent, important
and supportable civil society activities by the non-governmental sector.
Stakeholder relations and cooperation with different parts of
society have always been at the heart of SAI. This can be seen in the
multi-stakeholder governance structures and decision processes and is a
fundamental value on which SAI and the entire SA8000 are built.
As an important part of this approach, SAI has invited both
campaigners and other non-governmental entities to participate in its work, be
it as members of the governing bodies or through a good and constructive
cooperation. It is important that this cooperation continues.
There have also been situations where a campaigning
non-governmental organisation has found that there is an SAI or SA8000 related
issue which could support an on-going campaign. These have been related to
companies that are part of the SA8000 System which have been targeted by
campaigners for alleged violations or non-compliances with the SA8000 Social
Standard or the fundamental principles of SAI.
It would be regrettable if interaction between the SA8000
System and campaigners would be relegated to deal with acute problems rather
than working together for real and positive remediation with developments and
changes being brought about to the employment and working conditions in global
supply chains.
Conflicts and problem situations must be handled, but there
is also a need for new positive initiatives for working together that would
enhance the effectiveness of both cooperating parties.
SAI is well placed and able to communicate with both
companies and campaigners, also when there may be major disagreements between
these two parties. Thus, an important SAI contribution can be to help transform
the campaigners’ aims for improvement of economic and social conditions into
concrete action at workplaces, undertaken or supported by an influential and
committed participating brand or retailer.
Although corporate responsibility continues to be high on the
priority lists for serious businesses, it is obvious that much emphasis has
moved away from labour conditions to environmental issues. This reflects also
changing consumer interest and civil society activism. To keep social standards
and decent work on the global agenda requires a broad cooperation between all
those who are engaged, be they businesses, trade unions, campaigners and other
non-governmental organisations, public authorities or of course corporate
social responsibility initiatives and schemes such as SAI.
- Auditing and certification activities
“ SAI works to protect the integrity
of workers around the world by building local capacity and developing systems
of accountability through socially responsible standards. SAI established one
of the world’s preeminent social standards—the SA8000®standard for decent work,
a tool for implementing international labor standards–that has improved the
lives of over 1.8 million workers in over 3,000 factories, across 65 countries
and 66 industrial sectors. Many more workplaces are involved in programs using
SA8000 and SAI programs as guides for improvement. SAI is one of the world’s
leading social compliance training organizations, having provided training to
over 30,000 people, including factory and farm managers, workers, brand
compliance officers, auditors, labor inspectors, trade union representatives
and other worker rights advocates. “
The SAI website www.sa-intl.org
The Ali Enterprises catastrophe and the malfunctioning SA8000
Certification raises the obvious question whether the SA8000 should remain as a
certifiable instrument and whether social auditing against it should continue.
Another alternative could of course be to focus entirely on capacity building
and remediation programmes. This could of course be done through the Social
Fingerprint approach, which already plays an important and fast growing role in
the overall work of SAI.
With all its shortcomings, including those that we could see
with this recent catastrophe, there is a clear and continued need for the
SA8000 Standard. There simply is no alternative, and mainstream labour
relations are still unable to take over these functions in many parts of the
world.
That catastrophe hit SA8000 does not change the fact that it
has a leading position among its peers when it comes to the level of demands
and the serious approach to applying it. Auditing requirements and controls are
still stricter than with any other comparable standard or code.
In fact, the SA8000 Social Standard has reached a
particularly strong recognition in the world of voluntary corporate social
responsibility schemes and initiatives. Without in any way diminishing the
seriousness of the questions asked about
it in the discussion following the Karachi fire, the Standard will continue to
keep its position. With all due respect for those campaigning organisation that
have used the opportunity and launched broadsides against the CSR concept
itself, they are far from representing the prevailing views in society.
Business will continue to need these schemes, and the big majority consumers will
continue being indifferent, with most others welcoming this engagement of
brands and retailers. Being loud and declaring themselves as representatives of
the workers does not make the campaigner message carry far or for long.
The alternative would of course to completely rethink the
SA8000 approach, and to develop SAI into an organisation that focuses of
company-wide application of the Standard instead of only a supplier workplace
oriented approach. It would mean setting requirements on companies that sign up
to work for the application of SA8000 in their entire supplier network. In a
way, SAI would then ‘certify’ also participating brands and retailer and have
certain control obligations and functions in this respect.
Our experiences in handling the Dolefil case in the
Philippines and the related campaigner attempts to use SAI as a vehicle for
attacking Dole as the mother company, which continued until the workers at this
large site effectively put an end to that campaigning through a decisive local vote,
does not encourage to take this approach. It would surely force SAI to devote
much attention to handling general campaigns and take away focus and resources
from the core task of defending human rights and improving social conditions in
global supply chains.
In this paper, I will not go into the detailed measures that
surely are needed with regard to SA8000 auditing and certificating procedures.
There will surely be a deep discussion about this when all facts related to the
Pakistan catastrophe have finally been analysed, and I will therefore restrict
myself to some general observations and suggestions for discussion and possible
action, focusing on SAI and SAAS and their roles.
The strict separation approach to avoid conflict of interest
issues ends at the SAI and SAAS levels, and does not stretch to the
certification bodies accredited by SAAS. As we can now see very clearly, the
interests of SAI and SAAS and those of certification bodies can be both
different and at times also in clear conflict with each other. This can concern
both the general setup of SA8000 and its applications that is the task of SAI,
and the more detailed control functions performed by SAAS.
The cooperation and networking with these certification
bodies should of course continue, but the way this is done needs rethinking.
Their role as service providers to the SA8000 system should be the basis of
their participation, perhaps through something similar to the partner
organisations network that GSCP is building up. This would allow for their
close participation even if they would not be involved directly in any
governing bodies.
This is a problem as these entities – mainly private
companies – at present have an independent right and role in granting or
refusing SA8000 Certifications. It is too early to comment on this in relation
to the catastrophe in Pakistan, but I will instead make some general
reflections.
Unlike SAI or SAAS, these certification bodies have a profit
and business interest which makes their role
even more sensitive. A certification agency can enforce business related
conditions on a SA8000 certification, for instance when there is a need to
extend its validity, as we saw in the Dolefil case. To retain the certification
until a new audit can be done, a supplier could be forced to agree to have an
audit done with a particular certification body at economic or other conditions
set by this body.
Of course, there are complaints procedures concerning social
audits and certifications. One can ask, however, whether these mechanisms work
correctly or whether there is a need to look closer at them and revise them as
necessary.
One could also consider whether SAAS should not have the
right to overturn a certification decision made by an agency if there are
particular reasons for it, be the decision positive or negative. This should
perhaps also be possible without a formal complaint, but would of course
require clear and transparent rules as to when and how this could be done.
Having said all of this, there are long-standing reliability
and credibility issues common for all the CSR community which we should
continue to address. This can and should be done by developing the SA8000
itself where necessary, and by improving the reliability of the different
stages of its application:
- The SA8000 Standard needs to be more
clearly linked with supporting the development and effective application of labour legislation and collective agreement
based regulating of employment and working conditions.
- The SA 8000 Standard needs to give
more focus to empowering workers to participate in the application of its
requirements, aware that the present focus on management systems is easily
understood as a support for unilateral employer action without the involvement
of workers and their representatives.
- SAI needs to make clear that the
SA8000 standard is intended to be applied on suppliers and service providers in
global supply chains, unless particular companies or industry groups
exceptionally choose to apply it for their own labour conditions and relations
as well.
- SAI needs to make clear that its
focus and area of work is in the global supply chains, and that it will not
compromise its objective to defend and improve the human rights and proper
conditions of the workers in these supply chains by getting involved in
unrelated labour issues of supporting or participating brands and retailers.
These are issues for public authorities and social partners in the countries
where they operate.
- To avoid any conflict of interest and
to send a clear message of integrity, the future participation and involvement
of certification bodies in the work of SAI and SAAS should be channelled
through a network created for this purpose, and their membership in the
governing bodies – including the SAI Advisory Board and its committees – should
end. This also helps avoiding real or perceived conflict of interest
situations.
