The Corporate Social Responsibility Farce
by Jesse Jackson and Francis Fuku Yama
http://daily.stanford.edu/article/2007/4/26/sweatfreeStagesSewin
See all stories on this topic:
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ncl=http://daily.stanford.edu/article/2007/4/26/sweatfreeStagesSewin
Palo Alto,CA,USA
"In this industry, the only reason to change is because
someone has got a great cattle prod that keeps jabbing
you in the rear end," said Bud Konheim, a garment
executive in 1997.
Corporations in the garment industry with image
problems spent nearly $14 million every working
hour last year to change your mind about them.
Some of the money, for example, is spent like the
"hush money" which Nike gave to Jesse Jackson
when he came back from Indonesia in 1996 talking
"boycott." People in the industry acknowledge, when
they're honest, that the default position of low-skilled
manufacturing is exploitation and vicious cost-cutting.
Similarly, Francis Fukuyama describes the natural
reaction of workers to Taylorist (low-skill assembly)
production arrangements: "trade unions respond
with demands that employers specify their duties...
since (employers) could not be trusted to look out
for the welfare of workers."
Searching through the vast output of "corporate social
responsibility" initiatives, proposals and commentary,
two things jump out: denigration of the idea of "union
as solution" and a quite-small collection of promising
ideas. Foremost among the latter is the suggestion by
City University of NY business professor, Prakash Sethi
that multinationals and their contractors need to make
"restitution for years and years of expropriation of wages
of workers who are at the bottom of the food chain and
are least able to defend themselves." This simple idea
could usher in a paradigm-shifting chain reaction. The
big buyers would be moved beyond accepting blame
to accepting responsibility - including financial liability -
and courageous workers who stood up to abusive bosses
would (better late than never) win cash-in-hand payments
for tens of thousands of those cheated workers. Most
importantly, perhaps, would be the resultant pressure
on recalcitrant "host" governments that failed to protect
workers in the first place.
Another idea worthy of further exploration is the approach of the Worker Rights
Consortium, the only monitoring operation of any size that has remained out of the
grasp of corporate overseers. (Small local operations such as Central American human
rights groups COVERCO and EMIH do admirable work, but the impact is limited) The WRC
has propounded a plan that would steer university bookstore buyers in the direction
of "better" garment shops (college-logo apparel is a $2.3 billion industry). Though
students have won agreements at more than two dozen schools, it is difficult for the
WRC to recommend even a small number of "better" suppliers - mostly due to the lack
of real collective bargaining.
Unsurprisingly, a "slowly, slowly" attitude prevails at the Fair Labor Association,
another monitoring organization with colleges and universities as dues-paying members
but with major funding from big apparel brands. Choosing his words carefully, Auret
van Heerden, president and CEO of the FLA denounced the WRC's idea: "If they do
choose to form a trade union, that usually involves a long process of recruiting
members and building an organization. The negotiation and signing of a collective
agreement is also a process that cannot be reduced to a requirement." [The Designated
Suppliers Program would be imposed upon suppliers] "...in an undemocratic way without
a minimum of consultation."
The key problem, of course, is that developing world workers see almost no examples
of unions actually delivering some benefits or higher wages. They are justly reticent
in joining. Also part of the explanation is the frequent closure of factories where
workers have forced the bosses to the bargaining table, such as this case from the
Dominican Republic.
Virginia Tech business professor, Rich Wokutch, invited me to debate Nike officials
on the subject several years ago - my only face-to-face engagement since starting the
Nike anti-sweatshop campaign in 1991. Nike's Amanda Tucker berated me with "unions
are no panacea". Really, I wondered, how would anyone from Nike know whether unions
were even the least bit helpful for workers?
One grim graphic in The Hartford Courant tells it all: the Mexican workers making a
$38 UConn sweatshirt shared a mere 18 cents - and the university earned almost $2.50.
Could this have been any lower ten years earlier, when the "sweatshop" story broke?
How, then, did the big brands vault into the upper echelons of "responsible"
corporations? And how can we anti-sweat activists have so pathetically little to show
for fifteen years of cross-border organizing?
Just listen to The New York Times biz-pundit, Joe Nocera (nominated for '07 Pulitzer
Prize): "Nike, which had been the subject of fierce criticism in the 1990s over the
labor practices in the factories it engaged to make its goods, decided it made sense
to go the other way completely."
Nocera doesn't say what the footwear/apparel giant actually did to "go the other way
completely." A complete reversal would have meant abandonment of the
"contracting-out" model - where mostly-Asian contractors cut costs to the bone to win
orders - in favor of a commitment to own factories, set wage rates (or, collectively
bargain!), limiting (rather than forcing) overtime and to pay attention to the abuse
of vulnerable Asian migrant-laborers.
Instead, we have this business-as-usual, hyper-"transparent" April 2005 Nike press
release: "...four noncompliance issues were identified as ongoing challenges, both in
Nike's contract factory base and across the footwear, apparel and equipment
industries: hours of work, freedom of association, wages and harassment." Confession
may be good for the soul but it does little to ameliorate abusive practices at the
hands of suppliers that are merely "monitored."
Compliance is really big business now, but what an infernally vague and opaque
system! Businesses bought time - about the first three years - concocting standards
and oversight processes. For the last three years, armies of these companies'
consultants have been plaintively arguing at meetings around the globe that there
were too many standards and processes.
Some business observers see the "compliance" house of cards about to tumble. A
leading journal for purchasing and supply-management professionals put it this way:
A recent report found ethical buying codes have done little to improve factory
conditions overseas. For a decade now, companies have relied on these codes and
on-site audits, safe in the belief they are doing the best they can to improve
conditions for workers in their supply chains. But research published in October
threatens to strip firms of this refuge, exposing the reality that more must be done
if they are to make a genuine difference. (Supply Management, April, 2007)
Not to worry, according to the "corporate social responsibility" industry. It sees
nothing but more-profitable times ahead. According to CSRwire, "Corporate social
responsibility shifted from the periphery to the mainstream in 2005; in 2006, it
dominated headlines and catapulted into the heart of our collective consciousness."
--
_____________________________________________________
I intend to last long enough to put out of business all *****-suckers
and other beneficiaries of the institutionalized slavery and genocide.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The army that will defeat terrorism doesn't wear uniforms, or drive
Humvees, or calls in air-strikes. It doesn't have a high command, or
high security, or a high budget. The army that can defeat terrorism
does battle quietly, clearing minefields and vaccinating children. It
undermines military dictatorships and military lobbyists. It subverts
sweatshops and special interests.Where people feel powerless, it
helps them organize for change, and where people are powerful, it
reminds them of their responsibility." ~~~~ Author Unknown ~~~~
___________________________________________________
--
.
|
