Running away from responsibility?
High profile campaigns have forced many of the major sports brands to improve the way they do business when it comes to workers' rights. Ruth Rosselson asks whether this is enough.
“We have overtime work until 11pm or midnight every
day. The price they pay us per piece is so low, so there is no point to
us working such long hours. If our income was higher, I would have no complaints.
But all we have now is exhaustion and a low income. Some of us do not even
have enough money to spend on food”.(1) This is the voice of one of the
women producing goods for Adidas. Unfortunately, it is not an isolated voice.
Time after time, when campaigners interview workers in factories producing
products for the major sportswear brands, they hear the same story. An Oxfam
International report earlier this year found some workers in Asia making
football boots and other sports gear were paid as little as 3.76 euros a
day.(2) Campaigners argue that workers aren’t earning enough to meet
their individual basic needs, or those of their families. At the same time,
companies pay millions for celebrity endorsements.(2) Nike pays $13 million
a year to the Brazilian football team and $21 million to golfer Tiger Woods.
David Beckham receives around $3.3 million to endorse Adidas. Labour Behind
the Label argue that with this endorsement money alone, 100,000 workers
in Indonesia could receive a living wage.(1)
The good news
It might sound all doom and gloom, but there has been some progress. As
a result of pressure from consumers, many companies have adopted important
codes of conduct and this, at least in part, is likely to have led to some
improvements in the lives of the workers. Some companies are entering into
dialogue with campaigners, or joining multi stakeholder initiatives like
the UK’s ETI or the US Fair Labor Association. Campaigners also recognise
further progress by the following companies, who have all released some
details of the names and addresses of their factories: Nike, Reebok, Puma
and to a lesser extent, Adidas.(2) Campaigners have long been calling for
companies to publish the full names and addresses of the factories where
their goods are made because this kind of transparency “makes it easier
for civil society organisations to investigate and report on working conditions
in company supply chains”.(2) Oxfam’s report praised Reebok, Nike,
Puma, Adidas, Umbro, and ASICS for positive initiatives which have improved
the conditions in some of their factories, while Fila was criticised for
doing the least.
Our codes of conduct rating
We asked all the companies on the table for their supply chain policy. None
of the major brands supplied us with a code that would receive our top rating
as none has committed to paying workers “a living wage”. This is
defined as one which for a full-time working week, without overtime, is enough
for workers and their families to meet their needs for nutritious food, clean
water, shelter, clothes, education, health care and transport and allows a
small amount for discretionary spending.(2,3) Most companies state that they
will pay “legal national minimum wages” or “industry benchmark
standards”. The problem is that in many cases, neither come close to
meeting basic needs.(3)
In addition, many companies do not yet have adequate third-party monitoring
in place. Some also use vague terms which can be interpreted in a number of
ways - such as setting a maximum working week, “except in exceptional
circumstances”. Where one is set, the maximum is most commonly 48 hours,
plus 12 hours overtime. Some might argue that these hours are already excessive,
and indeed the International Textile, Garment and Leather Workers Federation
is campaigning for a 40 hour working week in developing countries.(4)
No Sweat’s code of conduct was a model code, with
detailed stipulations regarding wages (including a full definition of a living
wage), union involvement, holiday entitlement, a minimum age of 18, independent
auditing and details of its purchasing practices.
Violations
Unfortunately, the existence of a code is no guarantee that it is being implemented.
Violations of codes include excessive or forced overtime, inadequate wages,
harassment and bullying of workers, discrimination and intimidation.(1,2,3)
Violations have been found in factories supplying products for most of the
companies on our table, including: Nike, Adidas, Puma, Skechers, New Balance,
Reebok, Umbro, Pentland Group (Ellesse, Lacoste), Fila, ASICS, Mizuno and
Saucony.
What is left to do?
Campaigners argue that brands need to do the following:
• Increase wages so that workers have enough to live off on a regular
working week that doesn't exceed 48 hours.
• Change purchasing practices to ensure that they don't lead to worker
exploitation – this means negotiating appropriate delivery times and
fair prices which allow factory managers to meet orders while respecting
labour standards. Many brands have admitted that their buying practices
are contributing to excessive working hours.
• Be more transparent overall.
• Increase training for workers on their rights and related issues.
• Do more to ensure workers are allowed to exercise their rights to join
trade unions.(2)
Positive choices
A response to anti-sweatshop campaigns has seen a rise in the number of ‘ethical’
trainers being produced. Canada’s Adbusters Blackspot shoe is made by
unionised workers in Portugal with profits going to Adbuster’s anti-corporate
campaigns.(5) Worn Again is a collaboration between Terra Plana shoes and
Anti-Apathy and combines environmental and social concerns. No Sweat is a
US based brand which sources its products from unionised factories in Indonesia
while Fair Deal’s Ethletic baseball boot is the only one on our table
to be produced under Fairtrade principles. Fair Deal Trading distributes No
Sweat shoes while Adbuster’s Blackspot can be bought through Vegetarian
Shoes.
Animal Issues
All of the companies on the table except for Vegetarian Shoes, Blackspot,
No Sweat and Ethletic produce some trainers made from leather, giving them
a mark on the table under “other animal rights” for the use of slaughterhouse
by-products. However, you should also be able to find trainers by many of
the brands made from synthetic fibres. Also of concern to animal rights campaigners
is the use of kangaroo leather by some brands. Animal Rights group Viva! argues
that kangaroo slaughter in Australia is particularly cruel.(6) A 2005 Australian
RSPCA report concluded that at least 100,000 adult kangaroos were not killed
“humanely”.(6) Many more animals escape, only to die later while
millions more orphaned baby kangaroos also face a painful death. Viva! urges
consumers to look out for and avoid “k-leather” products. Companies
using kangaroo leather include: Adidas, Umbro, Mizuno, Rebook and Nike.(6)
Environmental issues
Materials of concern to environmental campaigners include PVC as well as
hazardous substances such as brominated flame retardants and triclosan.
Those committed to or having already implemented a no PVC- policy include
Nike, Adidas, Reebok, PUMA, New Balance and ASICS. No Sweat, Ethletic, Worn
Again, Vegetarian Shoes are all PVC-free. Ethletic is the only trainer to
have sourced Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) certified rubber for its soles
and receives an extra product sustainability mark for this. Worn Again also
receives an extra product sustainability mark because its trainers are all
made from recycled fibres.
LINKS
Oxfam Australia’s report is available to download from www.oxfam.org.au
or read the Labour Behind the Label and TUC report “Sweet
FA” from the Labour behind the Label website, www.labourbehindthelabel.org
The Viva!-led campaign on stopping the slaughter of kangaroos is
at www.savethekangaroo.com
Other organisations campaigning on these issues:
IGTWF: www.igtwf.org
National Labor Committee: www.nlcnet.org/news/
References
:
1 Sweet FA? Football Associations,
workers' rights, and the World Cup, Labour behind the Label, June 2006
2
Offside! Labor Rights and Sportswear Production in Asia, Oxfam international,
May 2006
3 Let's Clean Up Fashion, Labour Behind the Label August 2006
4 International Textile & Garment & Leather Workers' Federation website,
www.itglwf.org
5 http://adbusters.org/metas/corpo/blackspotshoes/home.php
November 2006
6 www.savethekangaroo.com October 2006
7 China
Labor Watch 'The Kingmaker Company's Factory in Zhuhai' June 2005 <
b>8
Saucony supplier values statement, Feb 2004
9 Boston Herald online
edition, www.bostonherald.com 7/1/06
10 Hi-Tec company supply chain
policy.
11 Jane's International Defence Directory 2004