CROSS-BORDER SOCIAL DIALOGUE AND AGREEMENTS: An ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

The ITGLWF’s policy on cross-border dialogue – Miller the potential for networking and organizing workers nationally can improve if it is coupled with disclosure of locations. As explained below, the ITGLWF’s policy therefore focuses not so much on horizontal networking along a brand supply chain, but rather on coordinated national supply-base organizing in those MNCs that have disclosed their suppliers’ locations. Such a strategy does not preclude the negotiation of an IFA between the ITGLWF and an MNC. However, such an agreement to late 2006 continued to prove elusive for the ITGLWF. Successful negotiations of IFAs in other sectors have depended on a strong trade union presence in the headquarters country (Tørres and Gunnes, 2003; Müller and Rüb, 2005; Hammer, 2005, p. 523), and, arguably, on the existence of robust institutional industrial relations arrangements permitting trade union access at strategic levels of decision making within companies. As seen earlier, organized labour, in apparel in particular, has a sporadic and certainly weakening membership foothold in the headquarter countries of key MNEs. Moreover, attempts to organize and network workers’ representatives along multinational supply chains have been dogged by an absence of disclosure of factory or vendor locations. In addition, there is the vexed issue of the proliferation of codes of conduct, which are viewed as alternative instruments to IFAs since they have been unilaterally drawn up by companies and often implemented with nongovernmental organization (NGO) rather than labour involvement. The waters have also been muddied by the emergence of multi-stakeholder initiatives — bringing companies, in some case trade unions, NGOs, and other interested parties together in an effort to avoid duplication and criticism via the establishment of a jointly agreed code, greater public transparency and the provision of third-party auditing/verification services. 14 Finally, and perhaps most significantly of all, the clothing and footwear supply chain remains notoriously anti-trade union (ICFTU, 2006; ITGLWF, 2006d). In the following section we look at each of these factors and the ITGLWF response in turn — disclosure of locations, codes of conduct, multi-stakeholder initiatives and MNCs’ avoidance of unions. 14 SAI International, Ethical Trading Initiative, World Responsible Apparel Programme, Fairwear Foundation, Business Social Compliance Initiative, Worker Rights Consortium, Global Compact, Fair Labor Association. 175
Cross-border social dialogue and agreements The disclosure debate The lack of transparency on employment practices within global supply chains has attracted growing criticism in recent years, resulting in a range of proposals for disclosure by MNCs (Doorey, 2005; 2007). The policy of the ITGLWF and some NGOs 15 has focused on full disclosure of supplier locations. In the ITGLWF’s draft IFA, disclosure of locations has always been a crucial transparency provision, without which any normative chapter would have no meaning (Miller, 2004, pp. 219 and 223). Furthermore, regular disclosure of locations enables organized labour and NGOs to track the supply-base consolidation process that has been under way since the expiry of the Agreement on Textiles and Clothing in December 2004. There are very clear signs that these calls for disclosure have begun to bear fruit. Students against Sweatshops has compelled university apparel licensees in the United States to disclose their suppliers’ locations on the Worker Rights Consortium website (www.workersrights.org). This has, in turn, prompted a few companies to opt for full disclosure on their own corporate websites. Social Accountability International has pursued a policy of publicly disclosing its certified facilities, although these give no indication of the buyers that source there. 16 A major breakthrough occurred when Nike, on publishing its second Social Responsibility Report in 2005, decided to release some 700 addresses of its firsttier suppliers on its website. 17 The ITGLWF had lobbied Nike hard on this (Doorey, 2007, p. 37). Shortly afterward, some other companies followed suit: Puma, Levi Strauss & Co, Timberland, and Reebok. Other companies have held back or provided qualified disclosure. Adidas has provided the ITGLWF with national supplier lists on request. Mizuno has released a list of those factories that have undergone a company audit. In the wake of the Spectrum factory collapse in Bangladesh (see the section “Breakthrough”, below), the Spanish multinational Inditex agreed to supply the ITGLWF with its 15 Ethical Trading Action Group, Canada. Available at: http://en.maquilasolidarity.org/en/node/ 219/print [29 Jan. 2008]. 16 For a listing see http://www.itglwf.org/DisplayDocument.aspx?idarticle=1158&langue=2 [4 Oct. 2006]. 17 Available at: http://www.nike.com/nikebiz/gc/mp/pdf/disclosure_list_2005-04.pdf [4 Oct. 2006]. The presence of the general secretary of the ITGLWF on the report review committee was a significant factor in the decision by Nike to disclose. 176
Page 1 and 2:
CROSS-BORDER SOCIAL DIALOGUE AND AG
Page 3 and 4:
Published by the International Inst
Page 5 and 6:
Cross-border social dialogue and ag
Page 7 and 8:
Page 9 and 10:
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Contributors Dominique Bé, an econ
Page 15 and 16:
Contributors Nathan Lillie is Assis
Page 17 and 18:
Acronyms BWI Building and Wood Work
Page 19 and 20:
Introduction Konstantinos Papadakis
Page 21 and 22:
Introduction - Papadakis each with
Page 23 and 24:
Introduction - Papadakis above. Thi
Page 25 and 26:
Introduction - Papadakis tices unde
Page 27 and 28:
Introduction - Papadakis role of co
Page 29 and 30:
Introduction - Papadakis veaux enje
Page 31 and 32:
Chapter 1 International framework a
Page 33 and 34:
International framework agreements:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Chapter 3 International framework a
Page 83 and 84:
International framework agreements
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Part 3 Legal dimensions 113
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134: Cross-border social dialogue and ag
Page 169 and 170: Part 4 Varieties of dialogue and re
Page 183: Cross-border social dialogue and ag
Page 199 and 200: Chapter 8 The ILO Maritime Labour C
Page 201 and 202: The ILO Maritime Labour Convention,
Page 227 and 228: Chapter 9 A report on the European
Page 229 and 230: A report on the European Commission
Page 235 and 236:
A report on the European Commission
Page 237 and 238:
Page 239 and 240:
Page 241 and 242:
Page 243 and 244:
Page 245 and 246:
Page 247 and 248:
Page 249 and 250:
Page 251 and 252:
Page 253 and 254:
Page 255 and 256:
Page 257 and 258:
Page 259 and 260:
Page 261 and 262:
Page 263 and 264:
Page 265 and 266:
Page 267 and 268:
Page 269 and 270:
Appendix
Page 271 and 272:
Page 273 and 274:
Page 275 and 276:
Page 277 and 278:
Page 279 and 280:
Page 281 and 282:
Page 283 and 284:
Page 285 and 286:
Page 287 and 288:
Page 289 and 290:
Page 291:
show all

CROSS-BORDER SOCIAL DIALOGUE AND AGREEMENTS: An ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?