Avainsana: SA8000

Julkaistu

Global supply chain fire safety requires broad action: Now is not the time for pushing pet projects

Wednesday morning, I listened to Alice Tepper Marlin’s thoughtful, balanced and responsible views on how we can best help workers in the global supply chains to enjoy safe and decent labour conditions. Social Accountability International and the truly multistakeholder SA 8000 Social Standard are very much the results of her engagement over the years.

When she started her groundbreaking work to make brands and retailers aware of their social obligations for those supply chain workers who contribute so much to their results, nobody could believe that this would one day be an important part of both public and corporate policies. For me as a trade unionist, the years with SAI and SA 8000 have been an important experience that has shown that patient work involving very different stakeholders can lead to important and concrete results.

The programme that was aired on US Public Radio the day before also interviewed New York Times journalist Steven Greenhouse, and one of the American social campaigners.

Steven Greenhouse is both engaged and knowledgeable, and understands the problems created by a world economy where apparel is produced cheaply and under often unacceptable conditions in less developed countries, to be sold by brands and retailers engaged in cut-throat price competition on their global markets. His scepticism towards large buyer companies and their willingness to make real improvements comes through, and yes I do understand this. But I hope and also believe that the next weeks will show how things are changing and moving forward.

The active role of the New York Times and of Steven Greenhouse himself in speaking out for better conditions in global supply chains is something to both welcome and support although there may also be conclusions and suggestions that not all will share.

The US social campaigner who was on the programme has been very active in commenting Pakistan and Bangladesh fire disaters. He is also a spokesperson for a particular fire safety project that his organisations has put together with others, including some important trade unions as well.

The concerns that this campaigner voiced over the sub-standard and also dangerous labour conditions that can be found in many supplier countries are valid.

More difficult to understand is why an experienced campaigner believes that attacking, shaming and condemning instead of inviting would be the efficient way of convincing some of the world’s largest multinationals to help change the reality for these Asian supply chain workers.

It is also hard to see what purpose is served by declaring all voluntary corporate social responsibility commitments and activities to be failures and useless. This is totally unfair against all the schemes and initiatives, most of them with a solid trade union and stakeholder participation, who are engaged in a concrete and important work in countries and at workplaces all through the global supply chains. It is also an affront against all those skilled and committed sustainability and corporate responsibility professionals who enabled their employers to make important steps in mainstreaming both environmental and social values and principles into buying operations and other core commercial functions.

To try to discredit this work instead of supporting a further development – and corrections where they are needed – serves no constructive purpose and is not in the interests of the supply chain workers whose working and living conditions this is about. If these schemes and initiatives would cease to exist, there would be nothing to put instead in so many countries of the world.

Perhaps the issue of these particular campaigners is more about moving the emphasis towards aggressive campaigning and attempts to force business to accept changes, rather than multi-stakeholder cooperation and social dialogue based action. It is unrealistic to believe that this would work.

To say that brands and retailers would ignore the problems and challenges posed by poor and unacceptable labour conditions at supplier factories and farms is neither correct nor fair. There is much work going on that aims to build local capacity to deal with these conditions and to support and promote remediation where it is necessary. Another thing is of course that the recent devastating factory fires show that this is not yet enough.

When these campaigners are aggressively pushing buyer companies to lend their support to and participate in their Bangladesh fire safety project, they fail to mention that much has already been done by some of the large brands and retailers who are sourcing in the country.

Carrefour and H&M are but two of these, having trained both managers and workers in hundreds of supplier factories, to understand and to deal better with fire hazards. GAP which has announced an important project in the same sense is being strongly attacked for not putting its support behind the campaigners’ project instead.

Don’t misunderstand me. The campaigner initiative is a highly supportable, and addresses also many such issues that cannot be solved only by awareness raising, capacity building and training. What is less good is that they give an impression of the most important thing being on whose conditions and under whose leadership things are done. To start by saying that buyers do not care about worker safety and cannot be trusted, and then demand that the same buyers join this project, is not the most effective way if one want to see real results at factories and in other workplaces.

There is no doubt about it: After the recent big disasters, we are going to see supply chain activities that involve major buyers, many of them world-class brands and retailers, together with social responsibility schemes and initiatives, SAI and others. Some have already started.

None of these businesses or stakeholders want to have a repeat of these tragic disasters, and we will probably see important changes taking place also at the very heart of sourcing and purchasing practices. These will have aconcrete effect on working and safety conditions.

What is now important is to make sure that whatever programmes are set up, they also address the need of structural changes at the workplaces, which brings them up to reliable safety standards, and do not stop only at awareness building and training. This will also cost a lot of money, which will have to be accepted by the supplier industries themselves, but also by the buyer companies and their customers, including the consumers in developed economies.

A key issue is to convince the governments in the producing countries about the need to act on the supply chain workering conditions. Only a common front of business and stakeholders, working from a politically neutral position, can bring this about, with strong support from governments both in producer and consumer countries.

To think that this could be achieved through a global governmental cooperation is surely unrealistic, as we have seen in the failure to raise even much ‘easier’ social considerations at many earlier occasions, including in the World Trade Organisation WTO.

This is not the time to make politics or to promote particular projects, however good someone may think that they are. Instead, it is a time for joining forces and cooperating, to the benefit of these disadvantaged supply chain workers and their families. There will be both room and a need for all those who wish to contribute, and their projects.

Julkaistu

Recent fire catastrophes in Pakistan and Bangladesh call for broad and concrete cooperation between all those working for better supply chain conditions

A global trading system where low paid factory workers put their lives in danger every day to produce cheap clothes for consumers who are themselves much better off is seriously flawed. The recent devastating fires in Pakistan, Bangladesh and also in China show the dark side of globalisation.

Main blame can and should be put on those who caused the disasters, who neglected fire safety rules and who locked workers into these death trap buildings. A heavy responsibility falls also on those politicians and government authorities who failed to ensure that even basic fire safety provisions would exist, which are effectively enforced in their countries.

Pressed by hard price competition on their consumer markets, buyers are often not prepared to pay enough of a premium for decent and safe working conditions. There also tends to be a push for fast and large deliveries that invite and force factories to grow production capacity in ways that make working conditions deteriorate even further.

This surely played in when fire struck both at Ali Enterprises in Pakistan in September, and Tazreen in Bangladesh in November. New floors were added illegally by the factories, large numbers of temporary workers were crammed into the dangerous facilities, and whatever space could be found was apparently filled with both raw materials and products. When fire broke out, the buildings became huge furnaces, with the few exits blocked or locked by management to hinder products to be carried out.

On-going investigations and judicial processes are now trying to uncover what really happened and to establish the legal responsibilities. What they would probably not show is the role of corruption in causing these deaths, with authorities clearly having turned a blind eye to enforcing safety provisions, probably also requested so by influential factory owners and managers.

Pakistan and Bangladesh placed 139 and 144 in this year’s Transparency International corruption index, out of 174 countries. Their public sector corruption levels were assessed to 26 and 27 on a scale of 0 to 100 where 0 is totally corrupt and 100 totally clean. In both countries, apparel production for the world markets is critically important, and competition with other global producers is brutal. Under these circumstances, protecting workers and their rights cannot be left  only to local authorities.

The situation is not helped by the weakness or total lack of trade unions or other genuine workers representatives in most supplier companies and workplaces. Workers are not empowered to influence their conditions, neither can they monitor them and ring the bell when their conditions are dangerous or otherwise unacceptable.

This is also why corporate social responsibility programmes and audits figured in connection with both the Ali and the Tazreen fires. Many if not most of the large international brands and retailers need and want to make sure that certain minimum social conditions apply in their supply chains. This is a demand from end consumers, but also linked to their ethical codes when they exist. It is also an important part of corporate risk management.

Both in Pakistan and in Bangladesh, the factory fires unearthed important shortcomings of this audit system. In the Pakistan case, local subcontractors to Italian audit company RINA have clearly not done what they were supposed to do, and the effectiveness of the mother company’s ‘distance-oversight’ has been questioned. In Bangladesh, the group that owns Tazreen had apparently placed production to this sub-standard and dangerous plant even if they had no acceptance for this from the buyers. These are all issues that need to be looked closely at when the whole system is reviewed.

Even if we already know much about what went wrong here, we would need to wait for the more formal local inquiries and court cases to bring whatever light they can to these man-made disasters.

The Ali Enterprises factory fire in Karachi, Pakistan cost the lives of nearly 300 workers, most of them young women. Very soon it emerged that the Italian auditing company RINA had only some weeks before had the factory audited and subsequently granted it an SA 8000 Certification. This was so recent that the news came as a total surprise also for Social Accountability International SAI, which owns the SA 8000 Social Standard.

The following weeks were to be dominated by one issue – intense pressure from some social campaigner organisations on SAI to publish the names of international brands and retailers that were buying from this factory. Both SAI,  which does not have access to audit report contents, and the independent but related oversight  agency Social Accountability Accreditation Services SAAS referred to their legal confidentiality obligations and declined the requests for releasing audit contents.

I can confirm this as a member of the Board of Directors at SAI, who did of course seek the advice of legal counsel. But also as a trade unionist I insisted on the confidentiality of audit reports under all circumstances. This confidentiality is necessary to protect workers and others who speak out on problems at supplier workplaces and who can face serious risks and even danger if their identity is revealed.

A certain irony was – if the word can be used in this tragic context – that there cannot even be a buyer list. Almost all production went to one large German retailer, which was already identified and had confirmed this. Also, the SA 8000 audit format is such that it does not ask for information concerning buyer identity. It is now being discussed whether this should be changed.

That there was an SA 8000 Certification – however flawed or dishonestly granted it was – was a coincidence. The factory had previously been audited by another CSR initiative, although their certification had been withdrawn much earlier and had not been valid for a considerable time.

A disturbing dimension to this whole issue is that the government of Pakistan has actively pushed apparel factories to seek social certification, and contributed financially towards this. As such, one could think that there is nothing wrong with this practice. After all some western European countries encourage similar approaches. What makes the Pakistan approach much more problematic is that it clearly aims at gaining a competitive advantage on the global markets without necessarily leading to an improvement of conditions.

Looking at this now, after the Ali Enterprises disaster, the government involvement should have led both the social auditing community and oversight institutions such as SAAS to tighten their controls. SAAS did issue an alert to the auditors – certification bodies – and asked for caution, but now we see that this was not enough of a warning signal for them. Instead, the deteriorating security situation in Pakistan lead auditors to the opposite. Local subcontractors performed the audits and certifications were issued from far away without sufficient involvement. The government subsidies that were provided as an encouragement for seeking certification apparently created a reluctance to deny certificates, which meant that eyes were closed where they should not have been.

One of the lessons to be drawn from this tragic fire in Karachi is to put in place much more stringent controls and also define the conditions that must exist for credible audits and certifications to be issued. This is now well underway at SAAS, perhaps late in the day if one is self-critical, but a necessary thing to do. Much details on how SAAS has followed up can be found on the SAI webpages at www.sa-intl.org . In my view it is an impressive work which hopefully will lead to major improvements to the whole audit based system of monitoring and reporting on supply chain working conditions.

Yes, this will make audits more expensive, but if it is necessary for their reliability it is a cost that has to be taken.

All this has been and still is a crisis for the whole CSR approach on conditions in global supply chains. Voices have already been raised that declare the death of these voluntary initiatives. The more radical campaigners that like to target leading multinationals have been vocal in these demands. Their view seems to be that exposing these buyer companies and their practices and pressing them to make concrete changes in their supply chains is more efficient than the work done by multistakeholder or business driven schemes and initiatives.

There is surely a genuine frustration behind this reaction. To translate social commitments and ethical codes into a change in buying practices is a slow and tedious exercise. One can also ask – with much justification I think – whether all corporate decision makers and commercial managers understand the needs for improved social supply chain conditions, beyond the most basic risk management, and accept the expenses that this entails.

Regrettably, some social campaigners give the impression of being worried that their role diminishes if business itself starts to do some of the things voluntarily that they have been pushing for so long. Many doors are already open, not necessary to kick them in, and it is perhaps not so easy to find a new task that is interesting enough to draw substantial support.  The often aggressive way that this is driven, questioning systematically the motives of large global buyers , and the right of existence of CSR initiatives comprising brands and retailers, may prove to be a disservice for these campaign and advocacy organisations themselves.

There is also a political agenda. Exposing real or perceived supply chain problems can also be a part of campaigns to force changes in the employer behaviour of these brands and retailers, many of whom are not unionised, particularly in the United States. I know this so well from my years in the trade union movement. This was discussed in depth also when my organisation UNI Commerce decided to engage in various CSR programmes, including SAI, the Business Social Compliance Initiative BSCI and the Global Social Compliance Programme GSCP. Many companies that we were to work with in these structures were opposed to our affiliated trade unions organising their own personnel.

Our final decision, unopposed, was to get on board, to influence from within, and to make sure that no ‘window-washing’ is possible. This showed a mature and responsible attitude among the affiliated commerce trade unions, who did not want to use the supply chain workers as tools to reach their own goals at home. This reflected very well  the ethical and moral values that should always define the labour and trade union movement.

One would hope and expect that also now the leading unions and particularly the global union federations focus on correcting the flaws with CSR initiatives and social auditing, rather that distancing themselves. It is clear that audit based systems can never replace a genuine worker empowerment to influence their own conditions through trade unions, social dialogue and collective agreements. The fact is, however, that in many parts of the world we are still far from this situation. If we would now give up these voluntary CSR schemes and initiatives, however insufficient they are, there would be nothing to replace them with.  It would be a huge disservice particularly to the very large numbers of supply chain workers and their families who depend on this support.

Ideological differences and other interest conflicts must now be set to the side, and we must focus instead on concrete measures to help create a safer and more decent world of work also where people themselves are still unable to do it on their own. Much has already been done on the ground. Some large retailers have reached out to hundreds of supplier factories with training and awareness raising about fire safety, including brands such as H&M, Carrefour and others. This means that there is something practical to build on.

It is, however, clear that also structural changes must be made. Multi-storey factories in closely built urban quarters, often without building controls and authorisations, will always be deadly dangerous. Production sites that can continue to be used need to be reconstructed to provide good fire safety conditions, and effective escape ways must be there should catastrophe strike, as should quality fire fighting equipment. This costs money, and at the end buyer companies and their own customers – the consumers in developed countries – have to be prepared to participate and enable these necessary measures.

Fire safety is an urgent and important area where a broad coalition of business, governments, unions and campaigners  is needed to bring about real change. I am pleased that we have began to see signs of this forming now.

Julkaistu

Discussion paper for SAI Advisory Board Meeting in Bologna, Italy on 9 to 11 October 2012

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

  1. 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:

  1. 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 ?
  2. Should the reference to ‘management systems’ be toned down in favour of another description which implicitly entails also workers empowerment and participation ?
  3. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.