By Ed Shepherd
Introduction
During the early 1990s consumer groups in Europe and the USA began campaigning against goods sold domestically but produced in sweatshops in Third World countries, particularly Latin America and Asia. (Sweatshops are now reappearing in First World countries like the USA and UK.)
Pressure was exerted on companies found to be using sweated labour by campaigns to boycott them that were organised by consumer organisations which 'Named and Shamed' offending companies. This adversely affected company images and their sales.
After initially attempting to distance themselves from subcontracted supplier factories, the companies were forced to admit responsibility for conditions of labour as the campaigners ensured that sales failed to live up to company expectations.
Supposedly to guarantee labour standards, individual companies then drew up and implemented internal corporate Codes of Conduct (CoCos). After a few years during which labour standards in subcontracted factories were shown to have made no improvement, internal CoCos earned widespread criticism as a mere public relations exercise.
Some companies saw a danger in inconsistent standards between companies, and also wished to reduce the expense of monitoring CoCos. The internal CoCo system was also soon identified as non-transparent, as the companies themselves had total control over them; survey reports were generally treated as confidential information and received no publicity. This led to further bad publicity, and a perceived need for companies to devise a system which could be regarded as 'independent' from the companies and 'transparent' to the public. It should be noted that some of the largest companies (such as Reebok, Mattel, Disney, and McDonald's) did not share the enthusiasm to 'globalise' CoCos, and continued to develop their internal systems.
SA8000
The charity Council on Economic Priorities Accreditation Agency (CEPAA) was founded in 1997 to address consumer concerns over labour conditions after the failure of internal CoCos. Though it has changed its name to Social Accountability International (SAI), it operates under the same conditions as applied under the CEPAA.
It devised the Social Accountability 8000 (SA8000) standard "and its verification system …. from established business strategies for ensuring quality"; it also adds "several elements that international human rights experts have identified as essential to social auditing".
The system should work like this: the SA8000 standard itself is based on United Nations conventions and International Labour Organisation conventions, and guarantees to implement all national and local laws. SAI pays accredited organisations and companies to audit workplaces. If successful, the company may be awarded with SA8000 certification. Audits are repeated regularly, and companies can lose certification if they are grossly under-performing or repeatedly fail to meet the standard.
Few labour activists would quarrel with the SA8000 standard itself.
The problem for critics of ILO core standards in CoCos, mainly trade unions and labour non-governmental organisations (NGOs), is in non-implementation of the standards combined with amateur and inaccurate monitoring.
Companies and pro-CoCo organisations have invested heavily in CoCos over the years. This can be seen as part of anti-labour, anti-union companies' continued strategy to deny any input into labour conditions by the very workers themselves.
A Hong Kong based coalition of labour groups closely involved in the CoCo debate, Labour Rights in China, condemns CoCos like SA8000 as 'labour rights without labour', because apart from minimal, sketchy, and dubious questioning, workers are not consulted about labour conditions. In particular there is no consultation with workers in drawing up, implementing, or monitoring CoCos.
| Limited scope of SA8000 AMRC has been critically involved with SA8000 from its early days - see No Illusions Against the Global Cosmetic SA8000 by Labour Rights in China (LARIC). AMRC is a LARIC founder-member. Leaving aside the controversy surrounding the accuracy of monitoring by accredited SA8000 auditors, there is a problem concerning the numbers of factories involved in the monitoring. The SA8000 system has received widespread promotion in the years since it was introduced, for example SAI received a further boost in January 2001 when Clinton's retiring administration gave US$1 million and the Ford Foundation pitched in a further US$600,000. Despite this less than 50 factories have received SA8000 certification in Asia-Pacific. This means that as an overall monitor of labour standards in the Asia-Pacific region, SA8000 does not even scratch the surface. For example, the International Textile, Garment and Leather Workers' Federation calculates that "one medium-sized US retail company sources its textile products from no less than 13,000 suppliers. These in turn use on average five sub-contractors, resulting in the retailer actually sourcing from 78,000 different sources of supply, with the added complication that many of these change from season to season." And bear in mind that this is only one company. The SAI could argue that this is a reflection of its insistence on the high standards in its monitoring system. This may well be true, but at the same time it indicates that factories either cannot meet the stringent standards, or they are simply not interested in the system because they can win contracts without SA8000 certification.
|
Instead companies either have management monitor themselves and unsurprisingly find no infringements, or parachute in external 'independent' organisations to do the monitoring. Those that employ external monitors stress the 'independent' aspect. One problem with this is that monitoring then becomes a business with the dangers of corruption associated with 'keeping the business'.
The argument about independent monitors is a complete red herring. Workers have never asked for independent monitoring; this is just another management distraction from the real issue of workers' rights. The only alternative with a chance of carrying out monitoring that guarantees to fight for worker interests is for workers to monitor their own conditions and bargain with management about the results. Here the added advantage over 'parachuting in' monitors is that it would also be continuous assessment.
Confusion reigns
Trade unions and NGOs cannot compete with the money companies pour into promoting internal and external codes of conduct. Perhaps most importantly they cannot afford the legal services big businesses take for granted to protect company interests. Terminology has become vitally important to companies trying to protect their images. Corporate lawyers are experts in using language to cloud issues and transfer focus to less harmful areas when their companies are under attack.
Phraseology is also crucial to organisations like SAI seeking to protect what they see as their impartiality against allegations from critical organisations which believe international or external CoCos are merely an extension of the smokescreen attempted by internal CoCos.
Terminology leads to hair-splitting, misunderstanding, and confusion. For example SAI's Web site says, "SAI developed a standard for workplace conditions and a system for independently verifying factories' compliance. The standard, Social Accountability 8000 (SA8000), and its verification system draw from established business strategies for ensuring quality …."
Yet in a letter to the National Labour Committee (NLC), SAI President Alice Tipper Martin says, "Ours is not a monitoring system, as monitoring refers to internal checking and does not require full factory compliance for recognition."
On another aspect of an NLC revelation that in a SA8000 certified factory, workers "have no idea what SA8000 was", Ms Tipper responded that "SA8000 explicitly requires that workers are trained in SA8000", requesting that any such factories should be reported to the SAI immediately for correction. However for this to be necessary in a factory that has already won SA8000 certification does not inspire confidence in the system for accrediting auditing organisations.
The SAI and user companies see SA8000 as a two edged sword - as a viable solution for improving workplace conditions and a good business decision. Critics see the latter as being more important.
Unequal regional representation
28 individuals are listed members of the SAI advisory board. 14 of these are from the Americas, one of who is the president of the SAI. Only one is from the Asia-Pacific region.
However only 22 of the 28 have voting rights (six are alternate members, only having the right to vote when the normal voting member is absent) on the board, and yet the 14 Americans mentioned above (almost 2/3 of the voting board) have the right to vote. One 'alternate' to these Americans is from Europe.
With open mistrust between northern and southern labour organisations, as exhibited in the almost polarised debate over the social clause, representation of Asia-Pacific countries on the SAI advisory board should not be taken so lightly.
Case History A Separate Reality - SA8000 In December 2000 the Hong Kong Christian Industrial Committee (CIC), one of AMRC's partners, reported on research in a Chinese factory which proclaimed SA8000 certification on the front gate. ALU will not reveal the company's name or address to protect workers from arbitrary dismissal. The information was taken from workers in key sections of production. Number of workers - over 2,000 workers. Wages - paid at piece rate plus a Rmb30 (US$1 = about Rmb8) bonus if they have no leave or late arrivals. In previous years a Rmb120 bonus was paid at the end of the first year's work, and increased by Rmb 60 each year. Bonus is now a flat rate Rmb100 - an obvious reduction in workers' income. Wages are paid monthly, but one month in arrears; even this can be paid late. Most workers make Rmb700 - 800 (not bad money for China) including overtime after deductions for board, lodging, food, and amenities. Overtime - three hours is normal, but sometimes workers must do five or six hours more. Workers clock on and off for normal work time, but for overtime during the week and at weekends, management has instructed workers not to clock in and out. China's Labour Law is not specific about piece rate working, and at this factory piece rate workers get nothing extra during overtime periods. Many workers complain that the working day is too long, Here the factory contravenes the Labour Law which specifies a maximum 36 hours overtime per month, which these workers far exceed even before weekend working begins. Working more than three hours overtime every day, as these workers sometimes must, is also illegal. Instructions not to clock in and out are obviously for the benefit of the auditors who will of course find the time cards perfectly in order. Working days - when there are many orders for the product, there is not even one rest day. China's Labour Law says two days should normally be rest days, but one day must be a rest day. In one workshop, workers had only one rest day from March to July 2000. September was slack, and piece rate workers had no work for ten days and hence no pay. October only had one rest day. Bed and board - meals are cheap breakfast costs Rmb 0.80, lunch and dinner are Rmb1.50 each. However the food is rubbish and many workers eat outside though it is more expensive, but it is not clear if they still must pay for factory meals. Dormitories house 24 workers; each bed costs Rmb15 per month. There is a dorm hygiene appraisal each month; the dirtiest dormitory occupants must pay Rmb30 for their beds. Toilets and showers are only provided on the ground floor. New starters - pay Rmb39 deposit. This is not illegal, but against the spirit of the law. Fines - vary depending on how serious an offence is committed. For example late arrival to work usually carries a Rmb20 fine; missing Monday morning assembly is fined Rmb60. Medical care - management does not compensate workers who suffer industrial injuries. Instead the company encourages other workers to donate money to them. The company only offers to pay for medical fees of injured workers. SA8000 audit - all audits are announced. When the auditors gives management the routine notice that they are about to visit to conduct an audit, a meeting is called to drill the workers in their behaviour during the inspection, and warned of punishment if they complain to auditors about the company or working conditions. Additionally workers are instructed to make the place clean and tidy. When asked by CIC about improvements brought about by SA8000 certification, one worker laughed ironically, "What improvements? Changes are only for the worse. Wages in several workshops have already been reduced twice. The bosses have just got craftier, saying one thing but doing the opposite." Stop Press: In a letter to our partner CIC on 29 January, SAI stated that SA8000 certification has now been withdrawn from this factory. The letter added that after improvements SAI hopes that certification will be restored to the factory.
|