Avainsana: Accord

Julkaistu

Campaigner field days don’t help the launch of building and fire safety activities in Bangladesh which will require broad cooperation between all those involved

When the Business Social Compliance Initiative BSCI marked its 10th Anniversary last week in Brussels, the Clean Clothes Campaign ‘congratulated’ them with a veritable broadside attack in media.

Last weekend, just days before we expect to be informed about how concrete action will start to improve building and fire safety in the Bangladeshi garment industry, the International Labor Rights Forum ILRF in the US seems embarked on anti-capitalist campaigning and demonstrations against leading US retailers, for having chosen other approaches.

As such there is nothing wrong with this. Campaigning is acceptable and sometimes even important. Still, there are some question marks.

Very many of the European retailers and brands that signed up to the Bangladesh Building and Fire Safety Accord, if not most of them, are BSCI members and are actively engaged in this organisation. Many of them were in Brussels, and the CCC message was clearly badly received even if not publicly raised or commented. If the intention  is to prepare the ground for a concrete and efficient cooperation in Bangladesh, the CCC attack was both misguided and poorly timed.

These campaigners in the Netherlands should reflect on  how they can best contribute to a good start of project activities and try to control the temptation to continuously go after brands and retailers, giving the impression that one of the reasons is that they are brands and retailers, and represent big capital. This is not a good time for that kind of campaigning.

The ILRF campaigning against Wal-Mart and GAP – and now other retailers as well – has other motives and grounds of course, but is equally questionable as it is pulling the focus off practical project work in Bangladesh. If the aim is to build some kind of even minimal mutual confidence to enable cooperation and coordination on the ground in Bangladesh, then anti-imperialist field days like this just before the project launch will not help.

Yes I do of course strongly support the Accord that was finally introduced by IndustriALL. After all, I have been engaged myself in bringing the coalition and activities about.

This is not the same ‘Accord’ as some of these campaigner organisations were unsuccessfully pushing for since a few years back. It is a new creation, developed in cooperation with leading global retailers and brands, at the initiative of companies and stakeholders in Global Social Compliance Programme GSCP. When IndustriALL joined this process, facilitated by the German development authorities, a coalition started to form. Of course the 2011 campaigner driven project plan was one of the elements used when the Accord was created, but not more.

It is regrettable that a broad US brand and retailer participation fell on the clause on the Accord that deals with the possibility of litigation in courts. As I am not a US lawyer I cannot take a stand on whether the companies’ fears of campaigning through the courts are justified or not. Here the enterprises and the campaigners disagree. A reality is that most large US retailers and brands have stayed outside the Accord and launched their own initiative.

The next months and years will prove if this US approach is serious or not. The pressure on the companies involved to show that they can produce real results will be high, as it will also on the Accord.

It is a good sign that IndustriALL Global Union has continued to keep its sight set on what needs to be done to secure the success of the Accord. Without this organisation, a broad coalition like the one we see today would never have been possible.

Perhaps it is time for the unions to calm down their most eager NGO supporters, and help IndustriALL and the committed companies to get a good start for their activities. Nobody can afford internal strife in a situation where the challenges are as big as here, not the least in convincing the local players of the seriousness of the initiative.

Julkaistu

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

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

Julkaistu

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Julkaistu

Bangladesh and Pakistan factory fire safety must be supported by broad coalition that lays aside other conflicts

Companies, unions and campaigners must set aside their differences and work together on supply chain fire safety.

If we really want to help improve factory fire safety in Bangladesh and Pakistan we need to move from talking to doing. There is one effective working week left for the global economy and supply chains in 2012. This is not much, but should be enough for concrete commitments to be made and plans of action agreed. This allows for the all-important work on the ground to begin early next year.

Already before the tragic factory fire in Bangladesh, I took the initiative to raise fire safety issues urgently also within the Global Social Compliance Programme GSCP. This was a reaction to the disastrous fire that struck the Ali Enterprises garment factory in Karachi in Pakistan in early September, and was readily agreed to by both the executive and advisory boards.

Nobody would of course have wanted to see that when the boards met for a joint meeting in Switzerland at the end of November, there was a second disaster to prove that urgent action is needed to protect the safety of workers in these as well as many other countries, where the present situation is bad beyond belief.

When I asked GSCP to take this up as an urgent issue on the joint agenda of the executive and advisory boards it was because of the unique convening power that this programme has among buyer brands and retailers.

GSCP itself is not really adapted to deal itself with the immediate needs for correcting the safety situation on the ground. It is more of a platform for encouraging and advising buyers and retailers on integrating high social and environmental standards into their supply chain behaviour. Driving upward convergence of individual codes, standards and other tools to achieve this, GSCP can help to move resources from social and environmental auditing to the all-important capacity building and remediation at supplier workplaces.

Leading global brands and retailers are already working together within GSCP on many aspects of supply chain responsibility, both on central levels and in regions where their buyers are active. When it comes to social and environmental conditions, the approach is non-competitive. I am convinced that we will very soon see this culture of working together forming a realistic and solid basis for their concrete and substantial contributions to making supplier factories safer for the workers.

This will further underline the important role that GSCP plays, but also that of individual corporate responsibility schemes and initiatives. They are not there as a substitute for obligatory rules or collective bargaining between employers and trade unions, but a tool to promote the same aims in circumstances where this would often not be possible without them.

During the last weeks we have seen an intensive discussion activity about the social dimensions of these global supply chains. Once again, we have been reminded of the bad and dangerous conditions of many workers who produce apparel and other goods for the world markets and consumers.  This public discussion with all its excesses has been useful and important for raising awareness among both those directly concerned and the general public.

And yes, there have also been excesses and ill-advised attacks, which have not necessarily contributed to build confidence for joint work to support concrete changes and improvements. We should still understand the frustration that drives also those who rightly feel that many safety risks should have been addressed much earlier. Clearly, there is scepticism also about the real preparedness of large buyers to participate, and to accept that their purchasing prices may be affected.

Now is the time to move on from this discussion. Positions have been established and opinions registered. Unless all focus on concrete action now, the supply chain workers and their families will not see improvements in their conditions. All who want to engage themselves in real ways  must now talk and work together, however differently they see the larger picture.

Brands and retailers, corporate social responsibility schemes or initiatives, global or national trade unions, non-governmental organisations, public sector authorities and institutions, suppliers and traders – they and others must now come together. Concrete projects and other action is needed.  Only a broad and powerful coalition can make a real difference for the workers who are concerned.

There are already things that have been done, which are useful when developing a comprehensive programme. Buyer companies have developed awareness raising and training materials, and already engaged in important capacity building efforts, such as French multinational Carrefour and Swedish apparel giant H&M. Others have developed their own projects and budgeted important funds for them, one of the public examples being the US based garment company GAP. All these companies have longstanding commitments to social supply chain responsibility and much experience of dealing with these issues.

An important part should also be that of the initiative which campaigner and advocacy organisations –  the Clean Clothes Campaign, the International Labor Rights Forum ILRF, the Workers Rights Consortium WRC and the Maquila Solidarity Network –  have launched last year in Bangladesh. With union and NGO support and commitment to participate by two large companies that also have solid social responsibility track records – US-based PVH and German Tchibo – they have developed a concept that is really worth a close look when developing any approaches also on a broader basis.

If a broader coalition can come together very soon – as I think it will – care should be taken that it can provide also a platform for a multitude of individual projects which are well aligned with all other activities. This civil society driven project should be one of these, and it should be in common interest to ensure that it then gets the necessary backing to be launched. The owners of this project should also see the benefit in this and be prepared to work as a part of a larger effort to ensure real and significant results.

Some key considerations when building a broad and common approach should be :

  1. Governments in the countries concerned must act to secure and effectively enforce safety regulations in all workplaces, not only those that work for the export sector.  There is also much work needed to combat corruption, which has a big negative influence both on fire safety conditions and on dealing with catastrophes when they happen.
  2. Individual suppliers and their industry federations must understand that demands on securing worker safety are serious and have to be acted on if they want to continue their business relations and role in global supply chains. They cannot only hide behind allegations that pressure on prices and supply conditions by international buyers push them to ignore safety considerations when building and operating factories. Even if this indeed is an important factor, it is far from the only reason for unacceptable conditions.
  3. Brands and retailers, traders and others who are engaged in global supply chains and who benefit from the work done in these factories and other workplaces have to carry their part of the responsibility, also when it comes to economic issues. Prices and other supply conditions must be on a level that allows for safe working conditions to be established and upheld, and respects the human right of supply chain workers and their families to live their lives in dignity. Here, buyers cannot hide behind anti-trust regulations and the authorities in the developed world have to accept that a level playing field may be one of the necessary conditions for dealing with this issue. This time, the economic dimension will be important, the fire safety situation will require also many structural and construction changes that will cost a lot of money. Part of this has to be carried by international buyers and the end consumers in the developed world.
  4. Campaigners and trade unions must take care that they do not use these issues as a vehicle for promoting other aims and objectives, however urgent they may be seen. They have to be prepared and able to work side by side also with companies whom they may have fundamental differences with when it comes to other parts of labour relations or their conceived social and environmental behaviour.  There is a job to be done here, and if the business sector is now prepared to act strongly and concretely, campaigners and unions should support rather than question it, and accept that everyone will have to make compromises along the road to secure that the main aim is achieved.

At the end of the day, successes and failures will be measured on how effectively changes are put in place locally. This means that relations between employers and workers have to be developed as well. Without a worker empowerment which normally takes place through trade union organising and social dialogue, credible workplace action and controls can become impossible. In addition to employers and unions themselves, the corporate social responsibility schemes and initiatives must consider taking a step further from a passive recognition of freedom of association and the right to collective bargaining and work for active worker empowerment to be included as part of their codes and standards, in addition to being raised in capacity building and remediation.

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.