|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
NEWSLETTER 15, JUNE 2002
Codes, Monitoring, and Verification - Why The
CCC is Involved
|
For those who have been following the debate on codes
of conduct (both the corporate codes of conduct and those
codes developed as models to be used by industry, such as
the CCC code) this brief introduction to the CCC's work
on codes, monitoring and verification will be old news.
But as this works proceeds and becomes more and more complicated,
especially as more efforts are put into figuring out how
to verify code compliance, it seems necessary to go back
to the beginning and tell the story of how and why the CCC
took up this work. This remains one of the questions most
frequently asked by people who are getting to know more
about the campaign and the sort of activities we're involved
with.
The Clean Clothes Campaign takes the core labor standards
of the International Labor Organization (ILO) and several
additional standards (freedom of association, right to collective
bargaining, no discrimination of any kind, no forced or
slave labor, a minimum employment age of 15, health and
safety measures, a maximum work week of 48 hours and voluntary
overtime of 12 hours maximum, a right to a living wage and
the establishment of an employment relationship) as its
guiding principles for acceptable working conditions in
the garment industry. The CCC developed a code, called the
"Code of Labour Practices for the Apparel Industry
Including Sportswear," which sets out these principles.
But why was this CCC model code developed? And how is it
different, both in content and in purpose, from the codes
developed by companies themselves?
The model code was developed because those in the campaign
and CCC partners recognized that there was need for a unified
standard to campaign around. They felt that there should
be consensus and clarity of our demands in relation to labor
standards. Coming together behind a common code would demonstrate
the broadness and international nature of the support for
these standards. It would also provide a challenge to the
weak codes that were being developed and promoted by garment
and sportswear companies. The CCC saw an opportunity to
make monitoring and verification of labor standards part
of the discussion (at that time these processes were referred
to as "independent monitoring"), by including
demands for such systems in the CCC model code. Years of
meetings, drafts, and debates took place resulting in a
finished CCC model code in 1997, which was presented in
early 1998. It was signed by international trade union organizations
ITGLWF, ETUC/TCL, WCL), several Asian organizations and
networks (from Indonesia, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Hong Kong)
and all the approximately 250 NGOs and trade unions in the
European CCC coalitions. Today it might seem strange that
this process was not a global one, but at that time a global
consultation process was far beyond the scope of the CCC.
The campaign did have contacts in Central America, but by
and large these countries were producing for the United
States market and therefore had a much stronger link to
labor rights organizations in the United States then to
those in the European campaigns. Generally, garments in
Western Europe came from Asia and Eastern Europe, but Eastern
Europe was still "closed territory" in terms of
contacts with local groups and knowledge of the industry.
(1)
|
The CCC begins to work
with codes
· 1993: Small-scale
international consultation on what should be included
in a code of conduct, at that time called a charter
· 1994: Fair Wear
Charter (Netherlands) presented to industry
· 1995: a declaration
of intent to set up a foundation to oversee the
implementation and "independent monitoring"
of the charter was signed by the industry associations
representing the small and middle-sized companies
in the garment sector in the Netherlands
· 1995-1996: deepening
of contacts in Asia, CCC spreads throughout Western
Europe, joint decision made to develop a model code
of conduct
· Process of meetings,
drafts, debates throughout 1997- 1998
· The CCC Model Code
was finalized in 1998
|
Though there is a lot of talk about "the proliferation
of codes," the model (CCC, ICFTU) and multi-stakeholder
codes (ETI) are quite similar when it comes to standards.
Those who have developed these codes are still very much
involved in debating the way to best implement codes and
enforce them. The proliferation of codes comes from industry,
which seems far less interested in creating a single standard,
despite what they say in public about level playing fields.
Companies developed their codes partly as a result of the
heightened level of awareness. Along with these in-house
codes came corporate-controlled systems of monitoring and
verification.
A few of these corporate initiatives are genuine efforts
to improve conditions, but many are only public relations
tools intended to deflect consumer inquires about workplace
conditions and corporate social policies. The standards
they contain are weak -- either vague or incomplete -- and
there is no commitment to implement, monitor or verify that
the standards are applied. In some cases, these company
codes make the situation even worse by shifting all the
responsibility for complying with labor rights to the supplier
level (production countries) without demanding any changes
be made at the top of the supply chain -- though it is delivery
times and prices set at the highest level of the supply
chain which often determine if suppliers can actually meet
the standards called for in a code of conduct.
|
Criticisms of Corporate
Codes of Conduct
* Vaguely defined
* Incomplete
* Not implemented and monitored
* Compliance is not independently verified. |
The CCC has made intense use of codes and the associated
public attention for them as a campaigning tool, using them
as a way to enter the political debate, forcing companies
to talk about the notion of a living wage and of job security,
and forcing authorities to react to violations of the right
to organize. At the same time this tool has enabled campaigns
to be much more effective "watchdogs," highlighting
the often glaring differences between codes on paper and
the actual standards found in the workplace. Many of the
urgent appeals cases the CCC works on involve labor rights
violations that are also violations of company codes. These
cases provide ample evidence of the failure of companies
to actually implement the promises made in their codes (in
most cases workers are not even informed of the rights articulated
in the codes - many codes are only pieces of paper, not
translated into the local language, that aren't even posted
on a factory wall).
Fuelled by increased reporting on code-standard violations,
the debate both within and beyond the CCC network started
to shift from the actual labor standards to issues of how
to monitor that standards were in place and how to go about
verifying the accuracy of such monitoring. Auditing and
quality control firms started getting in on the act, and
"social auditing and reporting" rapidly became
a new service industry.
|
From the CCC Network
During the CCC's international
network meeting in March 2001 in Barcelona to evaluate
and strategize in the wake of 10 years of campaigning,
the following points were made regarding monitoring/verification:
· Monitoring &
verification must include workers, labor NGOs and
unions in countries where garments are produced
· This can be a tool
to empower workers if implemented where there is
democratic space for organizations to participate
· Must go beyond the
first tier of suppliers (i.e. cover the entire subcontracting
chain)
· There is a risk
of shifting costs downwards (ex. current pricing
and scheduling practices at the top level of the
supply chain continue to prevent codes from being
implemented and put disproportionate pressure on
suppliers and workers)
· Regional differences
and the need for more interregional sharing on these
issues must be recognized
In the long term: the CCC
should move out of this work and instead carry out
a support & watchdog role
|
Some companies have signed the CCC's code of conduct. In
several countries, these companies agreed to participate
in projects with the CCC and the CCC model code (or in the
case of the UK, with the ETI base code). Specifically, these
multi-stakeholder initiatives include the CCC in the Netherlands
(Fair Wear Foundation); the UK (the Ethical Trading Initiative);
Sweden (the Swedish Project on Independent Verification);
France (Ethique sur l'etiquette with French retailers);
and in Switzerland (The Swiss CCC Project on Independent
Monitoring).(2)
In these projects, participants are investigating possible
ways in which a good code of conduct could be implemented,
monitored, and verified. Just as with the development of
the model code of conduct, the CCC believes that to really
oppose something, we need to be able to propose something.
In terms of monitoring and verification we know that we
need to learn more if we're going to be able to propose
an alternative to the company controlled and commercial
systems of social auditing and reporting that we are opposed
to. These pilot projects, as they are referred to, are meant
to allow the CCC to better understand the possible ways
in which a code of conduct can create space for workers
to organize and improve their lives. The projects have similarities
and differences in terms of structure and what models are
being tested.
Meanwhile, concerns have been raised about the dangers
of working with companies on such projects. There are concerns
that the campaign might be "co-opted" by corporate
interests and that involvement in these projects means that
campaigning activities are toned down (so far this has not
happened!).
There is a fear that work on codes and monitoring takes
up a disproportionate amount of CCC time and resources,
and that other possibilities aren't investigated as thoroughly.
Capacity problems -- for the European coalition members
and those in the South that are involved with these issues
-- are serious, so this seems to be a justified fear.
There is also concern that this kind of work legitimizes
company codes, promoting "voluntary" processes,
and reinforces the withdrawal of the state. Some are concerned
that the campaign in a sense is taking on the challenge
of solving problems for companies, instead of solving our
own.
And in the long term there is a fear that these processes
run the risk of creating "good" multinationals
and "bad" multinationals, which would serve to
legitimize international business practices in general,
when only the issue of basic labor standards is being addressed.
There are also concerns of international representation
- in other words, who has the right to represent who at
that the international level?
No final conclusions can be drawn from these projects yet,
because all are still underway, except for the Swedish project,
which ended and has generated a proposal for a monitoring
and verification body. Some early observations have been
shared, and can be found on the SOMO (Center for Research
on Multinational Corporations) website <http:www.somo.nl/monitoring>.
The report on the Swiss project, found in this issue of
the newsletter, also shares some insight into what has been
learned during the pilot projects. In 2000-2001 the CCC
and SOMO were involved in a project to coordinate the exchange
of experiences from these projects. It is hoped that in
2002 funding will come through to allow the CCC to continue
with this project. Specifically, the CCC and SOMO propose
to continue tracking the European monitoring and verification
initiatives, with an eye toward harmonizing terminology
and methodology, and to develop several monitoring and verification
tools.
- For more information on the development of the CCC
model code and the campaign's work with codes, please
see "The Code Debate in Context: A Decade of Campaigning
for Clean Clothes"
by Nina Ascoly and Ineke Zeldenrust, available at the
CCC website http://www.cleanclothes.org/codes/99-3-11.htm.
- For more on these projects, please see "Discussing
key elements of monitoring and verification," by
Nina Ascoly and Ineke Zeldenrust, September 2001 and "Overview
of Recent Developments on Monitoring and Verification
in the Garment and Sportswear Industry in Europe,"
by Ascoly, Zeldenrust and Joris Oldenziel, second edition
May 2001, both available from SOMO or at their website
<http://www.cleanclothes.org/codes/monitoring/reports.htm>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
