MATTEL, LEVI STRAUSS, REEBOK ENDORSE NEW CODE

On May 28, three companies highly invested in China - Mattel, Levi Strauss
and Reebok - announced that they had joined with 21 human rights, fair trade
and socially responsible investment groups in endorsing a set of principles
for corporations doing business in China.

The principles include: no use of forced labor, wages sufficient for meeting
basic needs, a reasonable number of work hours, no physical (or other)
abuse, safe and healthy work sites, no solicitation of state repressive
apparatus, respect for freedom of association and collective bargaining,
non-discrimination, no targeting of political activists, environmentally
responsible production methods and no child labor.

Some of the principles are tagged to labor law in China. Some establish
non-numerical targets. A newly-constituted Human Rights for Workers Working
Group will provide guidance for companies to implement the principles and
promises to provide a level of accountability for participating companies.

The code's endorsers note that human rights in China have, if anything,
deteriorated during a period in which U.S. private investment in that
country has increased substantially. Thus, business engagement, by itself,
does not guarantee an improvement in respect for human rights. Endorsers of
the principles express the hope that their wide adoption by U.S. companies
doing business in China will promote an improvement in human rights in that
country.

With regard to the new code, reactions from labor rights advocates range
from cautious optimism to outright skepticism.

<<<<<
A STEP FORWARD?
commentary by Trim Bissell, national coordinator, Campaign for Labor Rights

A BLACK HOLE: In the past decade or so, China has become a planetary black
hole. Like an enormous gravity force, China's cheap labor has increasingly
attracted global production, especially in sectors such as garment, sport
shoe and toy production. China's repressive apparatus and the secretiveness
of corporations siting their production in that country have allowed
precious little light to escape, leaving consumers and labor rights
advocates mostly in the dark about labor practices there.

Although the anti-sweatshop movement has been without a China strategy,
China looms at the center of much of our work. The Disney / Haiti campaign,
for example, was derailed in 1997 when Disney's largest clothing contractor
in Haiti closed its 10 factories, moving most or all of its work to China.
China is becoming the ultimate destination for a growing number of
cut-and-run companies. It is the dark star around which we all revolve.

THE CORPORATE PLAYERS: There is ample reason to be skeptical about the
motivation of the three initial corporate endorsers of the code. Levi's,
after exiting China a few years back with a promise not to return until
human rights improved, returned last year, when conditions were arguably
worse than at the time of its departure. The toy industry is notorious for
its use of horrendous sweatshops in China - and Mattel has been right in
there with the rest of the pack. Reebok, Nike and other sport shoe companies
have jogged from country to country, trying to stay one step ahead of
democratization. Reebok thus far has skillfully burnished its human rights
image while largely replicating the sweatshop practices of arch-rival Nike,
which has taken the brunt of criticism from labor rights advocates.

It defies belief that these three companies are motivated by human rights
concerns. In discounting their corporate sincerity, however, we should not
overlook one fact: Mattel, Levi's and Reebok would not have gone to the
trouble of joining this initiative unless they perceived a need. A restive
public has awakened consumer-oriented companies to the fact that they must,
at the least, pay lip service to worker rights. Ultimately, the hypocrisy of
these companies is less important than their vulnerability.

CODE DANGERS: There is any number of voluntary codes and more will arise -
some stronger, some weaker; some with elaborate monitoring provisions, some
totally unmonitored. All present the same danger: that sweatshop companies
will continue their unjust labor practices while getting cover from
meaningless pieces of paper.

CODE OPPORTUNITIES: Just as the various voluntary codes present a common
danger for our movement, they also offer a common opportunity: to use them
as leverage in corporate campaigns. In the words of Bama Athreya of the
International Labor Rights Fund (the ILRF endorses the China code): "Codes
of conduct have...been incredibly useful in corporate campaign work, since
they provide a neat and easy target. Let's face it, hypocrites are far more
interesting than mere wrongdoers, and it's been much easier to sensitize
press and public to Nike's failure to implement its own code of conduct than
to its failure to comply with Indonesian labor law."

LEGISLATIVE SOLUTIONS: Those favoring legislative fixes point to the
historical fact that it was laws, not voluntary efforts, which largely
eradicated U.S. sweatshop practices earlier in this century. Can we once
again solve this problem through legislative corrections? Two changes -
improved technology and reduced trade barriers - make it much easier now for
many industries to cut and run from strong pro-worker laws. It's worth
fighting for all the legislative fixes we can get but equally important not
to count on "the best government that corporate money can buy" for the
emancipation of sweatshop workers.

ILO CONVENTIONS AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL PACTS: To the extent that
governments have even bothered to sign the ILO labor conventions, they have
proved adept at ignoring them as unnecessary inconveniences. As with other
legislative solutions, it is worth fighting for strong worker rights
provisions in trade pacts and worth opposing trade bills lacking such
provisions. Saying that it would be good to have strong, enforceable
international labor standards is not the same as saying that we are now in a
position to see such standards enacted - or enforced.

WHERE IS OUR STRENGTH? Our strength is right where it has always been, in
organizing and mobilizing a mass movement and in the empowerment of workers.
Voluntary codes, monitoring structures, legislation, international standards
- all of these offer both dangers and opportunities. To the extent that our
movement is stronger, we maximize the opportunities. To the extent that we
have failed to build our movement, the corporations will take advantage of
the dangers. There is no quick fix, no easy solution, no rescue by
"enlightened" corporations.

We don't have to agree on a common strategy. (And we most certainly will not
all agree on one!) Respectful debates about differences over codes and other
strategies are helpful. Such debate, however, is no substitute for
organizing. When there is a national day of action and we count on a
response from hundreds of cities and hundreds of campuses, then we will be
looking at strategy in a whole new light.

THE CHINA CODE: In the absence of other activity, the new China code will
provide cover for the companies that sign on, without delivering substantial
change for sweatshop workers in China. That isn't the fault of our allies
who worked on the code. It's simply the reality of codes. The opportunity
offered by the new code lies in our ability to mobilize in support of worker
struggles in China, using the promises of the code as leverage. At this
point, we don't have a campaign to mobilize around. Hopefully, this code
will help provide an opening for such a campaign.

<<<<<
PRESS STATEMENT (released May 28, 1999)

Mattel, Levi Strauss, and Reebok International Endorse Human Rights
Principles for US Business in China

Mattel Inc., Levi Strauss Inc., and Reebok International Ltd. have agreed to
promote in their business dealings the human rights of workers in the
People's Republic of China. These companies, which manufacture toys, clothes
and shoes in China, endorsed a set of principles developed by major human
rights organizations in Washington on Wednesday. The campaign will encourage
a wide range of US companies operating or sourcing in China to sign onto the
campaign as well.

The three companies endorsed principles for business in China that exclude
the manufacture of products by forced or bonded labor, promote freedom of
association among workers, and prohibit discrimination based on age, gender,
marital status, pregnancy, ethnicity or region of origin. In addition,
companies signing the principles will forbid their facilities and suppliers
in China from engaging in any discriminatory practice against employees
because of their participation in labor, political, or religious activities.

The principles were drafted by human rights organizations including the
International Labor Rights Fund (ILRF), Global Exchange and Human Rights in
China and have been endorsed by major ethical investment firms, consumer
groups, and other human rights organizations including Amnesty International
USA and the Lawyers' Committee for Human Rights. "This is the first time
major US corporations have endorsed human rights principles for China," said
Dr. Bama Athreya, ILRF's Director of Asia Programs. The ILRF has released a
report, available to the public on ILRF's website or by request, documenting
China's dismal human rights record over the past decade, despite the
explosive expansion of US trade and investment there.

The principles reflect earlier Congressional efforts to promote human rights
in China in the wake of the Tiananmen Massacre in 1989. Initiatives in the
Congress in 1991 and 1995, respectively, failed to gain support needed for
passage.

This campaign brings together human rights groups, shareholder groups,
consumer groups and others to advocate for the adoption of these principles
by all US corporations conducting business in China. A Human Rights for
Workers Working Group is expected to provide detailed guidance for companies
to implement these principles successfully, and provide a level of public
accountability for signatories to the business principles.

For more information on the principles, contact Bama Athreya at
(202)347-4100; also human rights activist Yi Tong at (212) 662-7208, Xiao
Qiang, Executive Director of Human Rights in China at (212) 239-239-4495, or
Medea Benjamin, Co-Director of Global Exchange at (415)255-7296.

LABOR RIGHTS IN CHINA
US Business Principles for Human Rights of Workers in China

The Campaign Background

Why a new campaign on human rights principles for US business in China now?
In short, we believe that the 10 year anniversary of the Tiananmen
pro-democracy movement, and the crackdown of the Chinese government on that
movement, provide a perfect time to reflect on the US policy of
"constructive engagement." After the crackdown, the US government decided
that the best way to improve the human rights situation in China was through
a policy of "constructive engagement," or, through pushing the Chinese
government to open its doors to US business. Over the past ten years this
policy has brought great benefit to US business, but the human rights
situation remains bleak. We need a genuine strategy designed to encourage US
business to promote human rights in China.

The idea of a set of human rights principles for US business in China has
been circulated many times and in many forms in recent years. It appeared
first in 1991 as a US Congressional resolution, introduced by Rep. John
Miller, with language that would require the US Department of State to
verify company compliance with the principles and would have the potential
to apply sanctions to non-complying companies. This bill was passed in the
House of Representatives but the Senate took no action on it. In 1995, Rep.
Tom Lantos re-introduced a similar bill to the House but it failed to reach
the floor of the House.

We believe the time is right to recirculate these principles for US business
in China, and to develop a sign-on campaign for US companies in all
industries operating in China. The campaign will draw on broad based support
from human rights groups, shareholder groups, consumer groups and others to
advocate for a new set of US Business Principles for Human Rights of Workers
in China. Moreover a newly-constituted Human Rights for Workers Working
Group will provide detailed guidance for companies to implement these
principles successfully, and provide a level of public accountability for
signatories to the Principles.

The campaign will play a unique role in bringing together vibrant activist
movements on sweatshops, and on human rights in China. The longstanding
debate on corporate accountability intersects with a similarly longstanding
public interest in human rights in China. That interest has been enhanced in
recent months by the high-profile visits of Premier Zhu Rongji of China to
the United States, and of US President Bill Clinton to China. In the debate
surrounding these visits, public concerns about corporate accountability
were noted among a range of issues involving political repression and rights
abuses in China.

The goals of the campaign will be to raise awareness in the United States of
human rights abuses in China, and of the role US business can play -
positive or negative - in influencing the human rights atmosphere. Increased
public awareness will encourage US businesses to endorse and implement the
human rights principles. This will also lead to a change in the
government-to-government relationship, as the business community partners
with the human rights community to encourage both the US and Chinese
governments to find new ways to promote human rights issues as part of their
bilateral dialogue.

The International Labor Rights Fund is uniquely poised to play a role in
bridging the gap between these two activist movements, as a human rights
organization with extensive
experience in the corporate accountability area, and as an organization in
networks with trade unions, religious organizations, academic associations
and human rights organizations both in the United States and elsewhere.
Global Exchange, another sponsor of this initiative, has published reports
of serious workers' rights abuses in shoe and garment factories in China
producing for companies such as Disney, Nike and Reebok. Global Exchange has
also been in dialogue with a number of US companies on how to work with the
international human rights community to help create more space for workers'
rights in China.

<<<<<
THE CODE (complete text)

US Business Principles for Human Rights of Workers in China
May, 1999

As companies doing business in China, we seek to hear and respond to the
concerns of workers making our products. We want to ensure that our business
practices in China respect basic labor standards defined by the
International Labor Organization, and basic human rights defined by the
United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights and encoded in the
International Covenants on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and Civil
and Political Rights, signed by the Chinese government, as well as in
China's national laws. To this end, we agree to implement and to promote the
following principles in the People's Republic of China:

(1) No goods or products produced within our company-owned facilities or
those of our suppliers shall be manufactured by bonded labor, forced labor,
within prison camps or as part of reform-through-labor or
reeducation-through-labor programs.

(2) Our facilities and suppliers shall provide wages that meet workers'
basic needs, and fair and decent working hours, at a minimum adhering to the
wage and hour guidelines provided by China's national labor laws and
policies.

(3) Our facilities and suppliers shall prohibit the use of corporal
punishment, as well as any physical, sexual or verbal abuse or harassment of
workers.

(4) Our facilities and suppliers shall use production methods that do not
negatively affect the occupational safety and health of workers.

(5) Our facilities and suppliers shall not seek police or military
intervention to prevent workers from exercising their rights.

(6) We shall undertake to promote the following freedoms among our employees
and the employees of our suppliers: freedom of association and assembly,
including the rights to form unions and to bargain collectively; freedom of
expression; and freedom from arbitrary arrest or detention.

(7) Employees working in our facilities and those of our suppliers shall not
face discrimination in hiring, remuneration or promotion based on age,
gender, marital status, pregnancy, ethnicity or region of origin.

(8) Employees working in our facilities and those of our suppliers shall not
face discrimination in hiring, remuneration or promotion based on labor,
political or religious activity, or on involvement in demonstrations, past
records of arrests or internal exile for peaceful protest, or membership in
organizations committed to non-violent social or political change.

(9) Our facilities and suppliers shall use environmentally responsible
methods of production that have minimum adverse impact on land, air and
water quality.

(10) Our facilities and suppliers shall prohibit child labor, at a minimum
complying with guidelines on minimum age for employment within China's
national labor laws.

We will work cooperatively with human rights organizations both to ensure
that our enterprises and suppliers are respecting these principles, and more
broadly to promote respect for these principles in China. We will issue an
annual statement to the Human Rights for Workers in China Working Group
detailing our efforts to uphold these princip

The Clean Clothes Campaign
PO BOX 11584
1001 GN Amsterdam
+31-20-4122785
+31-20-4122786
info@cleanclothes.org
www.cleanclothes.org