The ETI in the UK: current sourcing companies that are members of the Ethical Trading Initiative include Levi Strauss, Marks & Spencer, Gap, and Mothercare. The ETI has devel-oped a mechanism that channels complaints directly to member companies. Complaints have to be filed by an ETI member organisation (NGO, trade union, or, presumably, a company) to the member company concerned. The ETI Secretariat only becomes directly involved if parties fail to reach an agreement. ETI member companies are also expected to provide workers with a confidential way of reporting failure to ob-serve the ETI Base Code directly to them. There is no obligation for member companies to ensure that their suppliers have a mechanism to handle worker-to-management complaints.
For more information, see www.ethicaltrade.org.

The FWF in the Netherlands: Fair Wear Foundation members include G-Sus, O'Neill and several smaller Dutch brands. CCC representatives are on the FWF board and the committee of experts. The FWF works with local organisations with good relations to the workers of the suppliers concerned, who can act as "complaints handler". These locally manage the procedure and report complaints to the Foundation, which is re-sponsible for follow-up. In the first step, the complaint goes to the member company to handle; if this fails to resolve matters, then the FWF becomes directly involved. At present it is unclear in what way member companies are obliged to devel-op channels to receive complaints directly or to ensure that their suppliers have mechanisms to handle worker-to-management complaints. As a follow-up, a verification audit is an option. For such audits FWF uses teams made up of local experts, following advice from members of its local partner network (which includes trade unions and labor rights NGOs).
For more information, see www.fairwear.nl.

The FLA in the US: members of the Fair Labor Association include all the major sportswear brands, such as Nike, Ree-bok, and adidas, as well as other major brands such as Liz Claiborne and Eddie Bauer. As part of its internal monitoring obligations, the FLA requires that member companies pro-vide workers with a confidential reporting channel through which they can report non-compliance directly to that member company. Member companies are also recommended to ensure that their suppliers have mechanisms in place for worker-to-management complaints. In addition, anybody can file a complaint directly to the FLA itself. The FLA (after review) passes the complaint on to the member company for remediation; the company has an initial 45 days to solve the problem before the FLA will intervene; but the FLA takes an active role in this process, and ultimate responsibility lies with the FLA. In some cases, the FLA has been acting more as a mediator. An example is the Jaqalanka dispute in Sri Lanka in 2003 where the remediation consisted of drawing up a collective bargaining agreement.
For more information, see www.fairlabor.org.

The WRC in the US: unlike the other initiatives, the Worker Rights Consortium does not have member companies and therefore does not have an official role in setting up complaint systems for sourcing companies. The WRC, to a certain extent, can be seen as an institutionalized variant of the activ-ist urgent appeal phenomenon. It concentrates on the complaints it receives, usually filed by NGOs or trade unions, and also investigates pro-actively. If an appeal from a local union or support organization concerns a factory producing apparel for a US college campus, the WRC jointly, in coordination with local worker organizations, investigates the complaint, and develops a suggested course of action for the sourcing companies concerned. The leverage provided by the WRC's university members, the final buyers of the product, means that sourcing companies are more likely to meet their demands.
For more information, see www.workersrights.org.

SAI in the US: before Social Accountability International (SAI) agrees to an SA8000 certificate for a company, it requires that there is a mechanism in place for company management to handle complaints from workers. Additionally, anyone can file a complaint directly to SAI itself, or to the certification body that certified the facility on behalf of SAI. Usually such complaints will first be passed on to the supplier or to the audit firm that certified it, for resolution. Or the complaint may be passed to a different audit firm. An investigation has to be made within 30 days, or an appeal can be filed with SAI, which then sets up an appeal board. Sourcing companies related to SAI (via its Corporate Involvement Program) are not required to have a process for directly receiving complaints.
For more information, see www.cepaa.org.