Public Eye on Davos 2004
Are Fair Labour Conditions Possible in the Sporting Goods Industry? (22.01.04)
Are Fair Labour Conditions Possible in the Sporting Goods Industry?
Are Fair Labour Conditions Possible in the Sporting Goods Industry?
This year will see two major sport events take place, the Summer Olympics and the European Football Championships. For the sporting goods industry this is a superb opportunity to engage in saturation advertising. But the working conditions in the factories of this industry will not make on to our television screens nor grace any billboards.
Ms. Asma, Secretary-General of the Independent Bangladeshi Garment Workers’ Union, was here to describe conditions in her country as an example. In Bangladesh, 1.5 million people are employed in the textile industry, 85% of them women. Goods for the largest brands, such as Nike, Adidas, Puma and Reebock, are produced in over 300 hundred factories. According to Asma, finding a job in one of these factories bring benefits to these women, most of whom come from poor rural areas. The job provides them with a small salary and some independence, builds their self-confidence and in many cases leads them to an increased awareness of their rights. However, their earnings rarely amount to a living wage, are paid irregularly and working hours range from 12 – 14 hours a day and they are in constant fear of losing their job.
Auret van Heerden from the Fair Labour Association spoke of his experience in the ILO where he was responsible for employment issues in export zones. He related one case where he asked the management of a company producing for Nike whether the workers had the opportunity to put forth their concerns. The reply he received from management was that yes, the workers had representatives who were given access to management for this purpose. However, when van Herden spoke to the shop floor workers they spoke only of management spies, not workers’ representatives. Only monitoring of companies’ claim will expose whether they do what they say they do.
Van Heerden spent 5 years working to get the Bangladeshi government to guarantee workers the right to organise independent unions, but without success. Even though market leaders in the sporting goods industry have signed up to codes of conduct which include such rights, all too often they are ignored. He says he came to the conclusion that market leaders like Nike could bring about change if they were put pressure on their suppliers to live up to the standards set down in these codes. This would include agreeing to unannounced spot-checks at factories by independent monitors, that reports of these monitors be published on the internet and that companies be given a deadline of 60 days to correct any violations. In other words, to submit to a process in which adherence to the standards is verified, not just promised. In addition, these large companies must accept that the costs of improving working conditions not be paid by workers, which means that they must not demand of suppliers the lowest production costs possible whilst calling for better conditions. Suppliers can only comply by lowering the wages of workers because they must operate within very narrow margins. Buyers such as Nike need to accept that slightly higher production costs will be required if fairer working conditions are to be achieved.
Neil Kearney, Secretary-General of the International Textile Garment and Leather Workers’ Federation, put it bluntly, <> Referring to the previous discussion, he reported that Bangladesh is already regarded by many of the market leaders in the industry as too expensive and they are transferring their production to suppliers in China, Sri Lanka and Cambodia. News of the assassination of a union leader in China just two hours ago is an indication, according to Kearney, of the difficulty of guaranteeing basic rights, such as the right to organise, in these new production sites.
Kearney agreed that voluntary initiatives are insufficient and only legally binding laws will bring about real change in the industry. Corporations cannot present themselves in public as socially responsible enterprises and at the same time oversee a production system which includes shorter and shorter production cycles and narrower margins so that they must constantly be searching for cheaper and cheaper production sources. Its no wonder that factory workers cannot be paid a living wage under such a system, must work long hours and do not have fixed contracts.
Meanwhile, corporations are well aware of the fact that the labour costs involved in the production of a football T-shirt that they will sell for Sfr 70.00 is less than 20 Rappen. Even doubling the wages of factory workers will not make a big difference to the total costs but clearly would to workers.
Frans Röselaers, who works for the ILO, says child labour has been an issue in the labour movement for more than a century, and efforts have finally in the last decade begun to bear fruit. As an example, he pointed to the production of footballs in Pakistan where today as a result of pressure from unions and consumer organisations the use of child labour is no longer the rule but an exception. In addition, the campaign to end child labour has raised the awareness of workers about their rights to organise and raised their confidence in the effectiveness of unions in negotiations with their employees.
The campaign against sweatshops, the Clean Clothes Campaign, which in Switzerland has been led by the Berne Declaration, has its international secretariat in The Netherlands. Ineke Zeldenrust, who works there, confirmed that the hard-won gains of the campaign are threatened by the transfer of sporting goods and textile production to new low wage countries. In addition to wage levels and working conditions she also pointed to trade regimes as another factor in the international division of labour and she used the example of Bangladesh and the Multi-Fibre Agreement to illustrate this. While Bangladesh achieved comparative advantage through this agreement, it will lose it again when the agreement is terminated, according to Zeldenrust. Therefore, pressure from unions and consumer groups must continue as it has achieved positive changes to date, and there is still so much to do.
 | Neil Kearney, Secretary-General of the International Textile Garment and Leather Workers’ Federation (ITGLWF), Belgium |
| | Ms Asma, Secretary-General, Bangladesh Independent Garment Workers’ Federation (BIGUF) and former factory worker |
| | Frans Röselaers, Director, International Programme for the Elimination of Child Labour, International Labour Organisation |
| | Auret van Heerden, President and CEO, Fair Labor Association, South Africa/USA |
| | Ineke Zeldenrust, International Secretariat of the Clean Clothes Campaign, Netherlands |
| | Moderation: Stefan Indermühle, Berne Declaration, Switzerland |
This year will see two major sport events take place, the Summer Olympics and the European Football Championships. For the sporting goods industry this is a superb opportunity to engage in saturation advertising. But the working conditions in the factories of this industry will not make on to our television screens nor grace any billboards.
Ms. Asma, Secretary-General of the Independent Bangladeshi Garment Workers’ Union, was here to describe conditions in her country as an example. In Bangladesh, 1.5 million people are employed in the textile industry, 85% of them women. Goods for the largest brands, such as Nike, Adidas, Puma and Reebock, are produced in over 300 hundred factories. According to Asma, finding a job in one of these factories bring benefits to these women, most of whom come from poor rural areas. The job provides them with a small salary and some independence, builds their self-confidence and in many cases leads them to an increased awareness of their rights. However, their earnings rarely amount to a living wage, are paid irregularly and working hours range from 12 – 14 hours a day and they are in constant fear of losing their job.
Auret van Heerden from the Fair Labour Association spoke of his experience in the ILO where he was responsible for employment issues in export zones. He related one case where he asked the management of a company producing for Nike whether the workers had the opportunity to put forth their concerns. The reply he received from management was that yes, the workers had representatives who were given access to management for this purpose. However, when van Herden spoke to the shop floor workers they spoke only of management spies, not workers’ representatives. Only monitoring of companies’ claim will expose whether they do what they say they do.
Van Heerden spent 5 years working to get the Bangladeshi government to guarantee workers the right to organise independent unions, but without success. Even though market leaders in the sporting goods industry have signed up to codes of conduct which include such rights, all too often they are ignored. He says he came to the conclusion that market leaders like Nike could bring about change if they were put pressure on their suppliers to live up to the standards set down in these codes. This would include agreeing to unannounced spot-checks at factories by independent monitors, that reports of these monitors be published on the internet and that companies be given a deadline of 60 days to correct any violations. In other words, to submit to a process in which adherence to the standards is verified, not just promised. In addition, these large companies must accept that the costs of improving working conditions not be paid by workers, which means that they must not demand of suppliers the lowest production costs possible whilst calling for better conditions. Suppliers can only comply by lowering the wages of workers because they must operate within very narrow margins. Buyers such as Nike need to accept that slightly higher production costs will be required if fairer working conditions are to be achieved.
Neil Kearney, Secretary-General of the International Textile Garment and Leather Workers’ Federation, put it bluntly, <
Kearney agreed that voluntary initiatives are insufficient and only legally binding laws will bring about real change in the industry. Corporations cannot present themselves in public as socially responsible enterprises and at the same time oversee a production system which includes shorter and shorter production cycles and narrower margins so that they must constantly be searching for cheaper and cheaper production sources. Its no wonder that factory workers cannot be paid a living wage under such a system, must work long hours and do not have fixed contracts.
Meanwhile, corporations are well aware of the fact that the labour costs involved in the production of a football T-shirt that they will sell for Sfr 70.00 is less than 20 Rappen. Even doubling the wages of factory workers will not make a big difference to the total costs but clearly would to workers.
Frans Röselaers, who works for the ILO, says child labour has been an issue in the labour movement for more than a century, and efforts have finally in the last decade begun to bear fruit. As an example, he pointed to the production of footballs in Pakistan where today as a result of pressure from unions and consumer organisations the use of child labour is no longer the rule but an exception. In addition, the campaign to end child labour has raised the awareness of workers about their rights to organise and raised their confidence in the effectiveness of unions in negotiations with their employees.
The campaign against sweatshops, the Clean Clothes Campaign, which in Switzerland has been led by the Berne Declaration, has its international secretariat in The Netherlands. Ineke Zeldenrust, who works there, confirmed that the hard-won gains of the campaign are threatened by the transfer of sporting goods and textile production to new low wage countries. In addition to wage levels and working conditions she also pointed to trade regimes as another factor in the international division of labour and she used the example of Bangladesh and the Multi-Fibre Agreement to illustrate this. While Bangladesh achieved comparative advantage through this agreement, it will lose it again when the agreement is terminated, according to Zeldenrust. Therefore, pressure from unions and consumer groups must continue as it has achieved positive changes to date, and there is still so much to do.
