2015-04-23
Two years after Rana Plaza
ArticleSupply chains
Two years after the tragic collapse of the Rana Plaza building, safety conditions in the factories have improved. But more than half of the survivors are still unemployed and most of them are still suffering from depression and trauma.
The Rana Plaza incident led to a unique collaboration between the Bangladeshi government, international brands, suppliers, entrepreneurs, NGOs and workers to work towards a safe and sustainable garment industry. The joint initiatives have made progress on improving fire and building safety in the garments factories. But garment workers in Bangladesh are still facing many challenges. Verbal and physical abuse at the work place, increased pressure to reach productivity targets within ordinary working hours, forced overtime and denial of paid maternity leave are common complaints from the workers, according to Human Rights Watch.
Recent reports show that living conditions are still very poor for workers who were severely injured and for the families of those who died in the accident. More than 60 percent of the survivors still need regular treatment for their physical injuries and psychological trauma, but many face financial constraints to receive adequate care. According to Action Aid and Center for Policy Dialogue more than half of the survivors are still unemployed and for those who are employed, the income is not enough to afford basic necessities, such as schooling for their children.
A fund that was set up by the International Labor Organization has yet to reach its 30 million USD target, thus leaving many of those affected by Rana Plaza without compensation.
Bangladesh has one of the world's lowest minimum wages and is the second largest exporter of western clothing brands. Industrial growth is needed if Bangladesh is to become a middle-income country but it should not come at the expense of worker’s life and dignity.
Text: Sanjida Shamsher Elora
Sources: Human Rights Watch, Action Aid, Centre for Policy Dialogue
- Focus Areas: Supply chains
- Industry: Manufacturing
- Publication: Article
- Region: Asia
Latest publications
Article
Supply chains
19 March, 2024
The future of due diligence in garment manufacturing
The future of due diligence in garment manufacturing
Photo: Awaj FoundationThe need for binding regulations and actions brands can take to promote living wages were key topics at a recent OECD meeting, where stakeholders gathered to discuss responsible due diligence in the garment and footwear sector. Read our analysis.
Since its adoption in 2017, the OECD Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Supply Chains in the Garment and Footwear Sector (hereafter “the Guidance”) has become accepted as the landmark framework for the sector. But despite some positive developments, the industry continues to grapple with systemic issues - from worker exploitation to environmentally damaging practices - and with the Pandemic and recent economic developments exacerbating existing pressures.
Against this backdrop, representatives of government, business, trade unions, civil society and academia recently met at the OECD premises in Paris to discuss challenges for the garment industry, with focus on how meaningful due diligence work can be a tool for improvement.
Swedwatch, with its long-term engagement in workers’ rights and role in promoting the Guidance, participated in the event. While a vast number of topics were discussed, here are some overarching themes we find likely to shape future due diligence practices.
Need for harmonized and binding regulations – as a baseline
Given limited improvement for workers and despite the development of several frameworks including the Guidance, many speakers expressed their support of binding regulations, like the currently negotiated EU corporate due diligence directive (which since have been passed by the EU Council, however severely watered down). Bärbel Kofler, state secretary of the German Federal Ministry of Economic Cooperation and Development, highlighted the positive effects of the recent German Supply Chain Due Diligence Act as an example of proof that such regulations can be very impactful.
There was a common understanding that binding due diligence regulations should be considered a baseline and need to be complemented with sector agreements and specific laws.
Why should those companies who invest more also pay more? So, I am arguing for mandatory binding legal frameworks. Minimum rules about the basics, don’t use forced labour, allow union rights etc. /Bärbel Kofler
Far from living wages - buyers need to step in
The lack of decent pay, i.e. sufficient for a worker to afford a decent standard of living, was central to many panel sessions. It was pointed out that most producers still struggle to pay minimum wages and that current purchasing practices compel suppliers to take cost-cutting measures at the expense of worker wages and safety. Going forward the enforcement of responsible purchasing practices (including fair payment terms, sustainable costing and collaborative product planning) by brands is therefore central. Long-term cost benefits were also discussed in the context of wages. Decent pay could reduce turnover, lead to higher productivity and a decrease of textile waste, which would benefit all stakeholders.
Adapting due diligence to circular processes
As the demand for recycled materials and processes surges, new high-risk stages and actors are added to supply chains and must be incorporated into companies' due diligence scope. Examples were given from India where used textiles pass several, often informal, waste management companies before reaching their destination and workers involved in sorting and reprocessing materials face hazardous work conditions.
Panellists also highlighted the need for regulations in this area, including the proposed EU Textile Directive for Extended producer responsibility, as well as the need for buyers to engage with suppliers in skills development and cost-sharing related to recycling.
Climate has become a worker's right issue
While many companies' commitments to cutting emissions are long term, climate change is impacting workers and communities here and now. A scientist from ILR Global Labour Institute shared data on the predicted increases in temperatures in key production centers such as Karachi, Colombo and Dhaka, which will lead to unbearable temperatures in garment factories, along with data on economic damage caused by heat waves and flooding.
Suggestions of what companies can do to increase their climate adaption engagement included being flexible on order in terms and conditions, supporting altered work hours and adequate rest and elaborating with cost-sharing models for investment in production facility adaption. Again, the importance of responsible purchasing practices was highlighted. Panelist Kalpona Akter, Executive Director of Founder of BCWS, talked about ways for companies to adress climate adaption, advising them to, simply, consult factory workers' to understand what new climate related work issues they face, and make an plan based on that.More in-depth info on the various topics can be found on the OECD Forum event page, including recordings to some of the sessions.OECD guidelines
The garment and footwear sector is one of the largest consumer goods sectors in the world. The OECD Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Supply Chains in the Garment and Footwear Sector establishes a common understanding of due diligence in the sector to help companies meet due diligence expectations.OECD Forum side session arranged by Swedwatch: How can public procurement make a change? Watch the recording 👇🏼Side session highlights:
✔️Public authorities across the EU are major textile purchasers
✔️Public procurement can be used as a lever to promote decent work
✔️A revised EU regulatory framework is needed to ensure public procurement promotes positive impacts
✔️Public authorities should include due diligence requirements in contracts – Sweden is leading with good examplesRelated Swedwatch reports
Contact
Sofia Käll, Programme Officer+46 (0)73 223 02 85sofia@swedwatch....
Article
Supply chains
15 March, 2024
Weakened EU law on corporate responsibility voted through
After several rounds of negotiations, EU member states finally voted in favor of a directive on corporate responsibility for human rights and the environment. Swedwatch welcomes the fact that the directive has passed an important formal stage, but deeply regrets the extensive dilution that the recent renegotiations have resulted in.
EU member states on March 15 finally passed the directive on corporate responsibility for human rights and the environment, the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD), in the Council's preparatory body COREPER. However, the renegotiated version contains several compromises and last-minute changes due to political maneuvers. Among other things, the law will only apply to companies with more than 1000 employees and an annual turnover of over 450 million euros, an increase from the previous 500 employees and 150 million. According to an estimate from the organization SOMO, this means that in practice only around 5400 – corresponding to 0.05 percent – of companies in the EU are be covered.
"We welcome the fact that the directive was voted through, but it is difficult to be pleased when the content has been watered down in a number of important areas. The fact that so few companies are covered is an incredible erosion of the purpose of the law; to protect the environment and people whose rights are violated in global value chains. That Sweden could not even support this version is incomprehensible," says Alice Blondel, head of office at Swedwatch.
More on the topic:
EU document with the agreed text
Learn more about the compromises agreed on between the member states March 15 in an analyse by ECCJ
Extensive analysis from Swedwatch (note well that the analysis is based on the previous political agreement, reached in December 20...
Article
Supply chains
29 February, 2024
No from Sweden to law on corporate responsibility
When EU member states met in COREPER 28 February, they failed to agree on the latest compromise text on the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive. The Belgian Presidency had hoped to get enough states on board for the directive to be approved, but too many are still refraining from endorsing the current proposal. And while several states obtained Sweden was, according to inside sources, the only country that voted against. “This is an enormous setback. If it is true that Sweden is so actively pushing to prevent the law from becoming a reality, then this is both shameful and incomprehensible. Three years of work to bring about an EU law that will ensure that companies take responsibility for the environment and human rights is now ultimately at risk of being abolished. This affects those who need it the most - groups exposed to human rights violations or environmental destruction linked to companies' activities”, says Alice Blondel, Swedwatch Executive Director. The content of the directive will now go back to the negotiating table, which means that the Belgian Presidency must do what it can to bring the other member states on board so that a majority can be secured. This must take place within two weeks, otherwise there is a great risk that there will not be enough time to adopt the directive before the EU elections in June. There is no guarantee that the European Parliament will want to go ahead with the directive after the elections. “Our hope now is that the Belgian Presidency immediately tries to gather a majority of the countries behind the proposal. It is also important that the directive retains the most important components that EU institutions actually agreed on in December. The threshold for which companies the law applies to cannot, for example, be set even higher. Regarding Sweden's attitude, we sincerely hope that the government will come to its senses by listening to those who want a powerful law - from the workers in global value chains to the companies themselves”, says Alice Blond...
Article
Supply chains
14 February, 2024
A law regulating corporate responsibility for human rights is feasible – and in demand
Concerned about Sweden's intention to vote against the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive and misleading comments made by the minister in charge, Swedwatch, Fairtrade Sweden, the Swedish Society for Nature Conservation Oxfam Sweden & ForumCiv released a joint statement to set the record straight.
Download the full statement (in Swedish).
According to Brussels sources, Sweden may be the only country planning to vote no to the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD). As several countries have yet to make a final decision, Sweden's vote may be critical for the final outcome.
Swedish Minister Ebba Busch publicly criticized the directive last week for being almost unenforceable. This criticism is hard to understand. Sweden has been waiting for EU-wide legislation for a long time. According to its national action plan on business human rights, there is a clear expectation that Swedish companies must respect human rights and comply with the UNGPs. In addition, many Swedish companies are urging the government to support CSDDD.
Claims that the directive could cause an administrative burden for companies are ill-judged. Compliance with human rights and environmental standards should never be seen as a burden, rather as an obligation under international law and norms. That the directive is described as unmanageable for companies with long and complex supply chains is hard to reconcile with the fact that a large number of Swedish, Nordic and European companies, many of which with complex supply chains, are calling for common legislation.
It is in fact the lack of harmonized legislation at EU level which complicates companies' due diligence efforts and leads to additional work and increased costs. Many Member States, including France and Germany, have already introduced national due diligence legislation, while advanced proposals are being discussed in the Netherlands, Spain, Finland, Belgium, Luxembourg and Austria. Voting no would force Swedish companies to deal with an increasingly complex patchwork of different national requirements and regulations.
The Minister's claims that SMEs can be negatively affected is also misleading. Several sections of the directive make it mandatory for large companies to assist SMEs with "targeted and proportionate support", including financial support. That is why SMEs call the agreed requirements both "appropriate and feasible".
The government's attitude is at odds with calls from the UN, companies, lawyers, academics, industry associations, unions and investors who all agree that the directive is ready for adoption. Opposing it now would not only undermine trust in the EU, but also damage Sweden's position as a sustainability leade...
Article
Supply chains
7 February, 2024
Call to the government: Don´t back down from your promise
In light of recent reports that Sweden may abstain from voting on the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD ), Swedwatch, Naturskyddsföreningen, Fairtrade Sverige ForumCiv and Oxfam Sverige released a press statement (in Swedish) calling on the Swedish government to respect the current political compromise. A Swedish no to the directive would be incomprehensible.
On February 9, the EU ambassadors will vote in COREPER on the political agreement reached in December last year. The work to bring about this legislation has been going on for over three years and a no could mean that the negotiations must recommence, if there is even time before the EU parliamentary elections this summer.
It is extremely rare for Member States to not endorse such a political agreement. Worst case, this could mean that there will be no common EU legislation on corporate responsibility, which would ultimately affect vulnerable groups who have become victims of human rights violations or environmental destruction linked to company operations.
It has long been clear that voluntary standards – the UN's Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights and the OECD's Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises – have not been sufficient to hold companies accountable for negative impacts on human rights, the environment and the climate.
While the Swedish government has previously been reluctant about certain parts of the directive, after several changes made, the government eventually supported the Council's position. If Sweden now chooses to abstain or vote against, there is a risk that other countries will follow suit. As a minority of four countries could block the proposal, Sweden could have a decisive vote.
Businesses are also concerned. In a joint statement well known Nordic companies are calling on governments to support the CSDDD through the last stages of the legislative process. Last autumn Volvo, IKEA and other large Swedish companies publicly expressed their support for a harmonized legislation. And ahead of the initial negotiations, in early 2022, over 100 companies signed a large company petition at EU level demanding effective sustainability legislation.
Surveys from nine EU countries show that over 85% of citizens want to see legislation that can hold companies accountable for violations of human rights and environmental destruction.
Swedwatch, Naturskyddsföreningen (SSNC) Fairtrade Sverige ForumCiv and Oxfam Sverige therefore call on the government not to change its position but to stand firm in its support and vote yes to EU joint legislation tomorr...
