Starting on Tuesday 19^th May 2009, Blood Sweat and Takeaways will examine the working conditions in the food industry in South East Asia. Six British fast food fanatics will live and work alongside workers catching, harvesting and processing food products such as tuna and prawns in Indonesia and rice and chicken in Thailand. The TV programme will examine the human cost of the food industry.

The first programme looks at Indonesia’s tuna industry in Bitung on the island of Sulawesi. In the UK, we consume over a billion tins of tuna each year and Bitung’s canneries supply many British supermarkets and food service companies.  The participants live with tuna workers in basic communities, endure 90-degree heat in the canneries and struggle with the harsh realities of life on a traditional wooden tuna boat in the western Pacific.

Watch a clip of the fast food fanatics visiting a Tuna factory here

We are excited to see that the BBC is exploring working conditions in the food industry as a follow-up to last year’s series. The title suggests that the focus of the programmes will not be solely on supermarkets, but that it will also target the food service industry.  This is an unusual approach as the British supermarkets are usually the target of these types of expose. The issues of course are widespread in the food industry and are not only located in the supply chains of supermarkets. On reflection, last year’s series covered the issues sensitively and intelligently and we hope this year’s season does the same.

As you will have seen from our blogs of the past few weeks, the attention in the UAE on labour standards for migrant construction workers has been immense.

There was a depth of discussion and debate about labour standards over the three days, but the issues that came up repeatedly included:

• What does CSR mean in the UAE and what are the responsibilities of business and government?
• Conditions in accommodation and welfare camps and how to maintain reasonable standards
• Health and safety for construction workers on site
• Training and skills development, especially in times of economic crisis
• Repatriation of workers who have lost their jobs

While discussion is good and necessary, it was great to see the Ministry of Labour announce  two initiatives that will directly impact the lives of workers – the development of a central electronic payment system and internationally recognised minimum standards for worker accommodation across Dubai.

In terms of private sector initiatives, the presentations (x 3!) from Build Safe UAE stood out as a shining light of practical collaboration to address health and safety issues. While the presentations at the GCC summit from the Labour Solidarity Center and the Builder and Wood Workers International union, ensured that the call for free unions and worker representation was also made.

The General Consul of India in Dubai made an important contribution to the debate at the GCC conference by talking about his office’s efforts to prepare workers pre-departure from their home country, monitor and support them whilst they are here and ensure they are returned safely. His presentation can be found here.

The dialogue underway at this week’s conferences reflects the changing tone of the Ministry of Labour here and the recognition by businesses that something has to be done. In Impactt’s perspective, there were two overriding themes, both of which have proved critical in addressing poor labour conditions in other countries:

• The importance of partnership – between business and the governments of both host and sending countries.
• The need for ongoing transparency and openness – admitting the problems and discussing the solutions in an open forum is a new thing in the UAE and we need to see more of it!

Impactt applauds all actors in the UAE for taking the first steps on the road to improved labour standards. We also encourage them to look at the work being done in the US and the UK, who face similar issues, and learn from their experiences – and mistakes!

Author: Jaana Quaintance

Low taxes and political stability have made this an attractive location for an increasing number of manufacturers in the past 10 years. The key products being made include cement, building materials, aluminium, fertilisers, foodstuffs, beverages, garments, furniture, plastics, glass, fibreglass and processed metals. Its central location in the Gulf region makes the UAE an ideal sourcing hub for both European and U.S. based purchasing companies. 

However, to date little attention has been given to conditions for workers in these sectors. In our experience they, like the construction industry, use a high proportion of migrant labour from countries such as Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and India. Whilst middle men demanding recruitment fees may be less common according to reported findings, the following issues have been identified:

• Retention of passports by employers
• Low pay and long hours
• False records
• Inadequate maintenance of fire equipment and other H&S facilities
• Outsourcing to smaller units where there is low visibility of conditions

Impactt encourages attention being placed on the conditions for construction workers, because it is certain that action is needed in this area. However, non-construction related industries should be aware that their supply chain here may present them with considerable risk because of poor labour standards.   

Author: Jaana Quaintance

The article reports that raw sewage was overflowing from septic tanks in workers’ accommodation because the landlord had not paid his electricity bills. One worker reported “Some of us have to sleep on the rooftop to escape from the sweltering heat. There has been no power in the camp for the past week and the conditions are completely disgusting.”

Approximately 500 workers downed tools on Saturday and could be found protesting on the streets of the Al Quoz Industrial Area where the camp is located. Police were called yesterday to get the men back into their camp.

Gunal Construction reported that they had been paying for the electricity, but that the landlord had defaulted on bills to the tune of Dh2 million (£371k). The company also said that they had put an urgent request into the Ministry of Labour to be allowed to install generators at the camp.

Impactt are delighted to see that the workers of Dubai’s construction sites are taking direct action to highlight the poor conditions they are experiencing. With global focus on labour camp conditions in Dubai, as a result of the recent Panorama expose, now is the prime time for workers to be heard.

New Look has been working with Impactt on a series of projects developing innovative solutions for sustainably improving working conditions in the supply chain. The projects demonstrate that improving working conditions can result in more productive and profitable factories, as well as happier and better-rewarded workers.

We are currently working with New Look, one of its key suppliers and a factory in Delhi to understand how it could pull off this win:win of better business and better jobs.

Our initial assessment found a situation which is typical in the Delhi export garment industry – casual and contract workers working long hours, with few rest days, low pay, and very high levels of absenteeism and worker turnover.  Workers were not particularly loyal to the factory and had no real incentive to work productively or stay for the long-term.  Unsurprisingly, the team also found low levels of productivity and efficiency.

Together, the improvement team identified the need to work side by side with the factory and support it to:

• Reduce its reliance on casual workers
• Offer permanent jobs to contract workers and provide access to social security and provident fund
• Improve communication between management and workers
• Offer incentives to workers to encourage more efficiency and productivity
• Improve management’s capacity to plan production and to work efficiently and productively

This work involves two workstreams:

• Workstream One: regularising employment terms
• Workstream Two: incentivising workers to improve productivity

We are pleased to publish a more detailed case study on this productivity incentives work on our website. We hope you find it inspiring and look forward to your comments.

Following the publication of Impactt’s 10th Anniversary Report, “Progress Not Perfection“ last year, we are delighted to publish our first annual report “Getting Smarter: Ethical Trading in the Downturn“.

High energy prices, food inflation, financial turmoil, recession and consumers tightening their belts – 2008 proved to be a challenging year.  The situation poses obvious but important questions for companies: how should they tackle the challenges of ethical trade and labour standards in a downturn?  Is work on upholding labour standards an optional extra to be discarded when times are hard?  Or have ethical issues moved to a point where they are considered core to operations?

Economic hard times present difficulties to all of us, from the CEOs of corporations to buyers, suppliers and the workers along the supply chain.  It is more important than ever to ensure that work on labour standards earns its place at the table, by demonstrating that products and services delivered by workers who have decent jobs provide better quality and value to businesses and consumers than those made by workers whose rights are infringed.  The challenge for everyone working in ethical trade is to develop ingenious and cost effective solutions which achieve the win-win of better business and better jobs all along the supply chain.  The task is getting harder, we need to get smarter.

Impactt strives to find creative ways to improve working conditions in supply chains to bring clear business benefits; we have developed case studies on 4 key projects from the year that do just that:

• Bangladesh Ethical Factory: A model for sustainably increasing wages and reducing working hours.
• Practical Child Labour Solutions: Building consensus on effective child labour remediation – getting working children back to school.
• Building Local Capacity: Expanding the capacity of local organisations to work with employers and employees to improve labour practices.
• Better Buying: Integrating ethical trade into the core operations of business.

The report also presents the findings from Impactt’s assessments of 98 production sites during the year to August 2008, which draws on testimony from 1,500 workers in 11 countries.

We hope the report provides interesting and inspiring reading, we look forward to your comments.

The key changes to the licensing standards are:

• The definition of being “Fit and Proper” has been strengthened and includes information on what areas of a licence holder’s work and life may be investigated. Breach of this section of the standards may result in a licence being revoked with immediate effect.
• Complying with PAYE, National Insurance and VAT requirements is now classed as “Critical”.
• Licence holders must ensure they comply with any Additional Licensing Conditions (ALCs) attached to their licence by the specified deadline. ALCs must be corrected within the time period prescribed by the GLA. This new Standard is “Critical” – if licence holders fail to comply with the ALCs attached to their licence they risk having the licence revoked.
• “New business” licence holders must notify the GLA within 20 working days of trading in the regulated sectors.
• Charging job-finding fees or making work-finding services conditional on workers using other services is now classed as “Critical”. It is illegal for businesses to attempt to encourage those seeking work to give money or presents (for example alcohol) for finding work.
• The “Critical” standards are now clearer on whether a breach would lead to a licence being revoked with or without immediate effect.

Impactt welcomes the strengthening of the standards. A recent report has illustrated the widespread support of the GLA, including from Gangmasters themselves.   

Many workers’ groups and unions such as the AFL-CIO argue that The Employee Free Choice Act is a landmark step in the fight for workers’ rights. It enables workers and unions to push for recognition, despite resistance from employers. But others argue that the act restricts the right of workers to a free and secret ballot, by imposing a ‘card check‘.

The Bill is intended to amend the existing National Labour Relations Act to make it easier for unions to gain recognition. The aim of the act is to increase workers’ opportunities to organise to improve their working and living conditions, and to reduce the power of businesses to stall the process or retaliate against workers who attempt to organise.

The Bill provides for workers to file a petition to have an organisation recognised for the purposes of collective bargaining, without the requirement of holding an election. Unions claim that the organisation of elections can be used by employers to delay the process of recognition and intimidate and coerce workers to prevent them from voting in favour of a union.

The Bill would require that the petition show the majority of workers within the bargaining unit have authorised an organisation to represent them. Once the organisation has been authorised, it and the employer would have 90 days in which they can conclude a collective bargaining agreement. If they are not able to come to an agreement, they must go through mediation and, if necessary, arbitration in order to do so.

The Bill requires that employers do not engage in anti-union campaigning activities during the recognition or bargaining processes or act in a discriminatory way towards union members and activists. If the employer engages in such activities then they would potentially be subject to remedial actions such as fines or paying workers back pay.

One contentious issue (aside from businesses’ concerns that forced recognition of unions would sound a death knell for them in a time of economic recession) seems to be that the views of named workers are revealed through a ‘card check’ or ‘majority authorisation ballot’. However, under the current system majority authorisation is required to show that there is support for the union, but does not result in recognition. Instead the site moves to a secret ballot, while the employer is in possession of signed authorisation slips from all workers who are in support of the union.

By enforcing recognition after the majority authorisation, without requiring a ballot, unions are far more likely to be recognised and there is no opportunity for employers to affect the decisions of employees. In Impactt’s view this is a step forward in US trade union law, which should strengthen workers’ bargaining power and allow them greater opportunities to protect their own interests.

Impactt’s own research has shown that where there are effective unions in place at a work site, workers are more likely to be paid the minimum wage and overtime premiums, and be treated fairly. They are also less likely to work excessive hours or be fined. The promotion of good labour standards is facilitated most effectively through a representative union. In Impactt’s opinion, the strengthening of workers’ ability to unionise will promote workers’ rights and improve labour standards across the USA.   

 ”Most of our graduates will either set up their own businesses or work in a fashion or retail company, so it is important to equip them with knowledge of the ethical issues that they will have to grapple with. If they set up their own businesses and outsource production, they will have to think of the conditions people making the goods will be working in. Some will be buyers for retail chains, but buyers often don’t think of the conditions of workers when negotiating a price for garments. In the current economic crisis, people are going to be looking for bargains, but the vast majority of workers producing this clothing are not on a living wage…. If the students leave Northumbria University with an understanding of how the prices they negotiate will impact on suppliers and workers’ wages … they are more likely to become an ethical buyer or business owner.”

As part of the experience, students heard from fashion industry professionals about their experiences working in factories, learnt about the technical processes of production and spoke to Bangladeshi women who have worked in the Bangladeshi garment industry.

Impactt applaud this innovative teaching experiment and hope that the students’ experiences will remain with them as they enter the fashion industry as the designers, buyers and sourcing directors of the future.

The International Labor Organization predict that the economic downturn will lead to 50 million workers being unemployed globally by the end of 2009. This week BMW fell under heavy criticism from union leaders after axing the jobs of 850 agency workers, following on from an additional 300 temporary job cuts last December at its Mini factory.

Reports of BMW giving one hour of notice and agency workers facing a struggle to find alternative employment saw Tony Woodley, joint general secretary of Unite, comment “Sacking an entire shift like this and targeting agency workers who have no rights to redundancy pay, is blatant opportunism on BMW’s part and nothing short of scandalous.”

The case again raises the tension between businesses and trade unions regarding the rights of agency workers. Businesses require a flexible workforce, the ability to terminate positions when faced with falling demand and the necessity of cutting costs to survive. Flexibility also brings benefits to workers who are able to work short or no notice period, have control over their work life and a way of getting a foot in the door.

Yet, in some cases agency workers can be engaged for much longer periods, even years, without being offered a permanent position within the company they already work for. Union leaders have put great pressure on the government to put a stop to the use of agency workers as a reliable, but disposable workforce, by affording them certain employment rights.

In May Impactt commented on a new deal between businesses and trade unions that would give agency and temporary workers employment parity with permanent workers after 12 weeks. However debate has stalled in the EU Parliament due to opposition against the continued use of an opt-out of the Working Time Directive. Impactt continues to support this measure which would prevent companies hiring temporary labour in the long term without giving them the associated benefits that a contract of employment provides.

By Joanna Buckley

Primark are again on the receiving end of allegations relating to labour abuses in their supply chain, this time the factory involved is in the UK.  The Observer, BBC and News of the World this weekend alleged that illegal immigrants are being paid just over half the minimum wage in a Manchester-based garment firm supplying Primark. The supplier, TNS Knitwear, may have breached a number of key employment and immigration laws. Illegal Pakistani, Afghan and Indian migrant workers were allegedly being paid £3 an hour and working 12-hour days, seven days a week. TNS Knitwear supplies an estimated 20,000 garments to Primark every week. Undercover footage of the factory is available to view on the BBC website and Lucy Siegle in the Guardian has started a blog on the scandal. These allegations occur only six months after outsourcing and child labour was found in Primark’s Indian supply chain.

In response to the allegations, Primark have announced they are conducting an internal investigation into employment conditions at TNS Knitwear. Unusually, they have also published audits conducted in April and December 2008, along with the Corrective and Preventative Action Plan, on their ethicalprimark.com website.

In an agreement with the Ethical Trading Initiative Primark, members of the ETI, will remove all references to the ETI from its stores and its corporate website. An ETI spokesperson stated “We are horrified at the allegations of abuses exposed by this investigation… First, we have met with Primark and demanded that it provides us with a prompt, full and frank response to the allegations. Where they are substantiated, the company has a clear obligation to work with the suppliers concerned to put things right.  Second, we have immediately launched a formal inquiry to establish whether or not there is a systematic failure on Primark’s part to implement the ETI base code. If such a failure were established, this would be grounds for formal sanctions.”

Although Impactt does not have access to the specific findings of this investigation, our experience of working with garment and food suppliers in the UK has raised significant numbers of labour abuses.    In 22 UK audits carried out between August 2007 and July 2008, 33% of sites employed casual and temporary workers, who are more vulnerable to abuse , 35% of sites were working more than 60 hours per week (the limit set in the ETI base code) and 26% of sites failed to pay the minimum wage.

UK-based suppliers perform an important role filling shortfalls in orders and producing garments for the UK market at shorter lead times than firms based overseas. However, they are under tremendous pressure to deliver product at short notice and at competitive prices. This pressure can lead to workers’ wages being squeezed and factories working long hours. Impactt often finds that workers being paid poor wages are forced to work excessive hours in order to make ends meet.

UK-based suppliers are often assumed to be at low risk of breaching labour standards; the UK is a developed country with extensive employment regulations and protection for workers.  This case illustrates that this assumption may not be well-founded; poor labour standards and exploitation of workers not only occurs in China, India and the developing world they can happen in our own back yard.

The Sunday Times article states that there was ‘no suggestion’ that Amazon was breaking the law. However, penalising workers for being sick appears to be against the spirit of the law; especially when you consider that workers should be allowed to self-certify their sickness in the first 7 days. Workers should also be subject to disciplinary procedures and official warnings, which are not detailed in the article. In addition, the law specifically states that workers should receive 48 hours’ rest (2 x 24 hour periods) in every 14 days. Furthermore, in Impactt’s experience, the transport charges imposed by the employment agency are excessive.

Although the Amazon business model relies on electronic ordering and payment processes, costs must also be managed by ensuring that efficiencies are gained in the despatch process. It is easy to forget that the ease of internet shopping, allowing shoppers to avoid the bustling high street, relies on real people doing jobs which are often extremely demanding.  As one worker quoted in the Sunday Times article stated: “I will never be able to look at amazon.com in the same way ever again without thinking, ‘Those poor bastards – what they go through’.”   

• A clear set of operational principles setting out the ground rules for efficient and ethical purchasing.
• scorecards for buyers and suppliers to incentivise efficiency and better ethical behaviour

These give players in the garment industry the opportunity to create a virtuous circle, ‘better, cheaper, faster, more ethical’, delivering commercial targets, efficiencies, labour standards targets and reputational risk reduction. The report is based on interviews with retailers, sourcing offices, agents, manufacturers and workers. The research was conducted in the UK, Hong Kong, China, Bangladesh and Cambodia.Impactt and Traidcraft hope that the recommendations in this report will help sourcing directors in fashion brands to deliver the goods for business and workers.

Minimum wage rates for over 21s will rise from £5.52 to £5.73 per hour, whilst the minimum wage for 18 to 22 year olds increases from £4.60 to £4.77, and from £3.40 to £3.53 for those aged 16 and 17.

This latest change represents a total increase of 59% since 1998, compared to a 44% rise in average pay over the same period.  The TUC has stated that more than one million workers will benefit from this rise.

Whilst Impactt applauds the commitment of the government to increase the minimum wage, research indicates that there is still confusion and lack of awareness  amongst small businesses about NMW levels. In addition, workers in particular industries such as hospitality, care and domestic service are often being denied these minimum rates.  A TUC report from December last year indicated that around 150,000 workers were not being paid the legal minimum.  Recent reports of ‘scrooge’ employers also highlighted the widespread use of tips in the restaurant trade to ‘top up’ workers’ wages to NMW levels. 

The minimum wage has undoubtedly benefitted a significant number of low-wage workers in its 10 years of existence.  However, inadequate enforcement of the minimum wage requirements continues to thwart the realisation of the regulation’s full potential.

The study looks at corporate ‘complicity’ in the actions of a state or other actor against the citizens of a country, and the idea that as social actors, companies and corporations should be working to prevent such actions; the very idea that underpins the concept of Corporate Social Responsibility. But the concept has thus far largely been a theoretical one.

However, there have been cases of corporations being held to account; the ICJ report cites the examples of senior company officials being convicted of war crimes for supplying poisonous gas to the Nazis and enslaving workers in their factories, and the increasing use of the Alien Tort Claims Act to bring cases against American corporations acting abroad.

But the ICJ have considered the concept of complicity in a global context, asking when and how companies could be considered to be complicit in the human rights abuses that are occurring in the world today. Their answers to these questions may surprise some, although they are based on fundamental concepts of law and morality.

The ICJ states that where a company’s conduct enables, exacerbates or facilitates gross human rights abuses, where a company knows or can foresee that this is the case, and where there is proximity to the perpetrator, the company could be held legally liable, both in civil and criminal law, nationally and internationally, for those human rights abuses.

In terms of labour standards and the supply chain, the IJC states that where there is proximity to the supplier or other actor who is perpetrating the human rights abuses and where it is foreseeable that the policies or actions of the corporation could exacerbate, enable or facilitate the abuses; the corporation could be liable.

Actions or policies could include pricing, lead times, paying specific types of taxes, or not acting on previous allegations or findings regarding a particular supplier. The proximity of the supplier to the buying company is important, but it is perfectly possible for a company to be held liable if they are aware of issues in a particular region and do nothing to alleviate them.

The ICJ limits its discussion to gross human rights abuses such as torture, slavery and child labour; but the theory is applicable to other abuses such as low wages, high hours and sub-standard health and safety, all of which are included in international human rights frameworks. The ICJ provides guidelines for corporations on how to change their behaviour to avoid complicity, and the current methodology in the CSR field also provides a good framework.

Although the impact of this report will not be clear until cases are brought and examples begin to provide the structure through which corporations are held to account in particular countries or internationally, Impactt believes that the report provides further pressure on companies to address the way they trade.

We would like to congratulate the swift work of those who have campaigned on this issue, and have achieved a meaningful win for working conditions!

A campaign launched by The Independent last week aims to highlight the treatment of waiters and waitresses working in some of the biggest name high-street restaurant chains. In an article entitled “Revealed: how the restaurant chains pocket your tips” The Independent exposed a series of unfair practices in the restaurant industry. The article showed how some restaurant workers are not paid their tips in addition to a standard wage; instead, tips given by customers in the belief that they are rewarding good service are used to top up wages to the legal minimum wage. Other restaurant workers receive no tips, and workers in one Covent Garden restaurant in London reported receiving no basic wages at all, and instead are being paid entirely by the tips that they receive. According to the article, the restaurants are simply exploiting a loophole in the law, but the feeling that they are also exploiting their workers is difficult to shake.

Working conditions in the hospitality industry have long been criticised as being below expected standards. In the US, the union UNITE HERE have organised a high profile Hotel Workers Rising campaign aimed at raising the wages of workers throughout the States. In the UK, the TUC recently published findings from the Commission on Vulnerable Employment, which focused on low wage service work. But there has been no specific focus on improving wages or working conditions in the restaurant trade.

An increasing number of workers within the hospitality industry are vulnerable migrant workers. Many work behind the scenes as kitchen attendants, cleaners, pot-washers or night porters. In May this year, the Justice 4 Cleaners campaign in the City of London, successfully raised the issues of wages for cleaners employed by cleaning contractors to work in some of the City of London’s largest and most affluent high-rises. The Independent’s story suggests campaigners may have to broaden their focus from cleaners to all low wage service workers.

In Impactt’s experience, where working conditions are not transparent and there is no pressure to improve, there is widespread non-compliance with expected standards and, in some cases, legal requirements. Many workers in this industry are young workers who are working over the legal maximum for evening or night hours. Migrant workers are particularly susceptible to working excessive hours during the peak season, in order to send remittances home, cover for reduced incomes during the low season, or simply to make ends meet.

Impactt welcomes Trade Union and media attention on the conditions of workers in the hospitality industry. Restaurant-goers should be prompted to ask questions about what their tips are funding, showing their unwillingness to be complicit in the underpayment of waiting staff, and ensuring that restaurants and hotels are held accountable for conditions at the ‘fork face’.  

Following the Primark news stories and Panorama documentary a couple of weeks ago about the undeclared outsourcing and child labour in the Indian supply chains of Primark, we thought we would write a blog about homeworking and the challenges it represents, particularly in the Indian garment industry.

As we noted before homeworking is endemic in the Indian garment industry. It is a fallacy to believe that only Primark and low-cost garment retailers are vulnerable to the problems, such as child labour, associated with homeworking. The issues homeworking presents to retailers and brands are complex. All too often companies’ responses have been to ‘cut and run’, which has left workers in a more vulnerable position than they were in before. Retailers and brands should be responding to the issue in a progressive manner; improving working conditions for adults, whilst reducing the incidence of child labour in these relationships.

Homeworking in India exists for a number of reasons.  It is linked to old craft traditions, but increasingly it is being taken up due to declining opportunities for workers in the formal sector. It also relates directly to the growth in demand for hand-made and crafted items. It is characterised by women workers, young workers and low pay. As the Panorama documentary demonstrated middlemen organise the outsourcing to the homeworkers. The system is far from transparent and homeworkers often have irregular work and no contractual relationship with middlemen. Lack of rights, combined with limited transparency over working conditions means homeworkers are especially vulnerable and the incidence of child labour is high.

However, homeworking has a number of advantages to the workers themselves and to the factories with varied production schedules. In many cases homeworking is a key part of workers livelihoods and survival strategies. For many women, homework constitutes their employment of first choice as it can be combined with domestic work. In cultures where women’s mobility is restricted homeworking is the only employment option. There is some evidence to suggest that homeworkers’ working conditions can be better than some factory workers. Homeworkers can plan when they work and how they work. For the factories, homeworkers provide a pool of skilled workers, doing jobs such as embellishments that are difficult to mechanise. Homeworkers can be relied upon when a factory needs to increase production quickly.

So what can retailers or brands do to improve terms and working conditions for homeworkers? The ETI have produced the ETI homeworker guidelines: recommendations for working with homeworkers, which is an excellent first step. It has a number of recommendations which are particularly pertinent to homeworking on the Indian subcontinent. Another great resource is the HomeWorkers Worldwide website, which has a number of interesting research reports and resources for understanding the issue.

The first step should be to map supply chains to understand where outsourcing to homeworkers is occurring and identify where an intervention by a retailer/brand could have maximum impact. The ETI guidelines suggest that many efforts to improve conditions for homeworkers have been counter-productive because there was no initial effort to get a full understanding of the complex supply chains before embarking on a remediation programme.

Once the supply chains are understood, brands should work to ensure that the homeworking relationships become visible and the working conditions for homeworkers can be monitored and improved. Some brands and retailers have had success through the establishment of community centres where homeworkers can come together to work. The best of these are run and operated by an independent NGO or homeworkers’ organisation; are located close to workers homes, and are run as a central distribution centre. They have flexible opening hours; and are used as a focal point for introducing other schemes to benefit workers, such as training and social security schemes.

Other retailers and brands have helped the support of microcredit schemes and collective social insurance. Perhaps one of the most high profile of these schemes is Benetton’s partnership with Birima micro-credit programme in Senegal. It is not clear to what extent Benetton is sourcing from the recipients of this scheme, but it shows the potential of what a retailer or brand could do.

There remains much scope for companies and their suppliers to innovate in this area, to create new ways of working with homeworkers and create better conditions for these workers.

Perhaps the most high profile Tesco critic of recent weeks is the US Democratic Party’s nominee for the presidential election – Barack Obama. Mr Obama recently wrote to Tesco Chief Executive Sir Terry Leahy encouraging the retailer to engage with Trade Unions, after the management of the company’s US operation – Fresh & Easy – refused to have discussions with UFCW, a grocery workers’ union.

At the same time, Tesco is also under pressure from War on Want and Labour Behind the Label who have undertaken research into the living standards of workers in some of Tesco’s Indian suppliers. The two organisations claim that workers earn an average of £38 a month – £14 below the estimated living wage of £52 per month, while working long hours and even having to do forced overtime shifts. The report also claims that workers are put under pressure to meet onerous targets, and are fired if they fail to do so.

Tesco has responded to the War on Want allegations saying they were ‘unsubstantiated’, they have criticised War on Want for declining to engage with the supermarkets. “Out of the blue they make these allegations without producing any evidence,” Tesco said.

In the UK, meanwhile, TV cook Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall is encouraging Tesco to improve the welfare of the intensively reared chickens that it procures. Animal welfare campaign groups have also focussed on the sale of live turtles in Tesco stores in China

Labour standards are now an established issue at the Tesco AGM. Last year War on Want filed a shareholder resolution focused on living wages in Bangladesh. In 2006, Action Aid brought South African farm-worker Gertruida Baartman to address the shareholders. The debate around Primark shows that these issues are only growing in consumers’ awareness and we can expect more calls for retailers to respond.

Our main beef with the programme was its failure to give workers a voice.  The only time any worker spoke was to confirm their age. We are therefore none the wiser about how workers (adults and children) felt about their situation.  Whilst the conditions shown in the film were far from ideal, the people stitching the garments may well be dependent on their earnings from this work.  Getting their view on how Primark could improve their lot would have been useful.  It would certainly have make it harder for the Tirapur Export Association to release a statement alleging that the children captured on film were not actually working.

Hand embellishment of garments in India is almost invariably subcontracted to informal units or homeworkers, carrying the risk of child labour.  We welcome the clear view Panorama gave us down these supply chains.  The overwhelming public and consumer reaction to the film has been to urge companies to stay in and work with their suppliers and workers on these difficult issues.  Criticism of Primark has been focused on the decision to ‘cut and run‘ rather than on the discovery of problems in the first place. Maybe it’s time to move on from denial and distancing towards a more grown-up approach of engagement and improvement.

Following the news stories last week and speculation in the Ethical Trading community, the BBC is set to show its investigation into the ethical standards of Primark’s supply chain this Monday at 9pm. A potentially controversial trailer is available on YouTube:

The footage shows outsourced finishing in the backstreet slums of India and child labour in Tamil refugee camps usually closed to outsiders. The programme uncovers organised middlemen running off-the-record order books for a factory supplying Primark and distributing finishing work amongst slum-workers.

The documentary raises important questions about low-cost fashion and how it is produced; but we wonder whether it is just low-cost fashion retailers who are vulnerable to these practices. This depiction is reminiscent of the Gap exposé last October which revealed child labour in unknown subcontracted factories. As we commented last year, if Gap could be caught in a situation like that, after developing arguably one of the most comprehensive ethical trading programmes in the industry, any company sourcing from India could be caught out. Clearly controlling supply chains is well-nigh impossible.  We at Impactt think that it is time for another approach.  The need is to identify these informal supply chains, which after all provide some income for very poor people, to develop ways to keep adults in the supply chain, but working under better conditions and to support working children back to school, whilst maintaining the family’s income.

Primark’s response to the allegations has been to drop three suppliers for using undeclared subcontractors. Primark have a point here, since the suppliers are in breach of their agreement – however, walking away is never going to solve the problem.  This type of action will leave adults without jobs and the children caught in the media glare in an even more vulnerable position.  To be fair, Primark has announced its intention to establish the ‘Primark Better Lives Foundation’, which will provide financial assistance to organisations devoted to improving the lives of young people; whether or not this will address the needs of the children found in their subcontracted factories remains to be seen.

Although Primark are being targeted in this show, our research shows that poor labour standards, including poor health and safety, excessive overtime, poor wages, discrimination and even child labour are common place in many workplaces across the world.  These issues are persistent and systemic across all sectors and all countries.  The causes are complex, and include the failure of governments to enforce laws, as well as lack of good management in factories, and problems caused by the pressures which retailers and brands can put on their suppliers.

Whilst Channel 4 blame ‘editorial reasons‘, we suspect that Channel 4 is dealing with some legal challenges from Primark. Hopefully these issues will be resolved and the programme can be shown at a later date.  Whilst it’s a shame that the show has been pulled, we welcome the spotlight that Alexa Chung’s involvement has brought to the subject of labour standards and hope that this is the start of a challenging and informed debate.

 The government have this week revealed a new deal between businesses and trade unions which is to give agency and temporary workers employment parity with permanent workers after 12 weeks at work.

The measures should come in to force during the next session of Parliament, provided the government is able to ensure that agency workers are able to opt out of the Working Time Directive. This requires action in Europe to ensure that any EU directive includes the provision of an opt out.

The agreement comes after months of debate in Parliament and between businesses and trade unions in order to thrash out a deal which would prevent workers from being exploited, but also allow UK businesses to benefit from a flexible workforce. The business secretary, John Hutton, claimed that the measures would “give people a fair deal at work without putting their jobs at risk or cutting off a valuable route into employment”. The Confederation of British Industry, which was at the negotiating table with other employers’ groups, described the agreement as the “least worst option”.

In an effort to ensure that agency and temporary workers are still an attractive option for employers, the deal does not provide them with Statutory Sick Pay (SSP) or pension benefits after the 12 week mark. Such workers would have to work as long as permanent workers in order to benefit from full maternity rights, but it is not clear when such workers would be able to claim SSP.

Impactt welcomes this new deal, and hopes that the implementation of the measures will be timely and effective. It remains to be seen how the government will prevent employers from evading the regulations, although the agreement includes ‘anti-avoidance measures’. The risk that labour users will simply dismiss agency workers after 11 weeks and 6 days remains a concern. Perhaps the model of the Gangmasters Licensing Authority could be used to empower the Employment Agencies Inspectorate, in order to license and prosecute employment agencies who breach any new and existing rules, and regulate the conditions of workers when they are working.

The Guardian has speculated that the measures have been forced through a scared and meek Labour government, eager to gain approval from voters who are edging away from them in the polls, in a similar way to the implementation of equal pay legislation whilst Harold Wilson’s government was ‘on the ropes’.

We believe that it is a troubling thing when the rights of workers are only defended by a Labour government during times when they are desperate for political approval.  However, as a pragmatic bunch, we also commend the trade unions for standing their ground and utilising the weakness of the government in order to protect the rights of an under-represented group of workers, which has for many years supported many industries in the UK such as agriculture, hospitality and construction.

The video presents an extremely powerful message, contrasting the lives of two children so closely.  The music adds beautifully to the sentiment and makes the video  compelling and effective.

The reach of the video is anticipated to be very wide; bloggers have been reporting that the video will be seen by an estimated 560 million households worldwide.

Explaining his involvement in the project, Thom Yorke, the lead singer of Radiohead, has been quoted as saying “I think it’s important for everyone in the West or on the high street to understand the consequences of our economic activity. You must be aware of the level of exploitation that’s going on,” Yorke said. “It’s part of our Western life, and one we should accept responsibility for. There’s no such thing as a free lunch or a free ticket to another country.”

Radiohead are planning to follow up on the video by asking activists campaigning on human trafficking to distribute information on their upcoming tour.

The video can be seen here

Musicians have a long, and sometimes controversial, tradition of supporting development agendas; just think of Bob Geldof and Live Aid or Bono‘s celebrity endorsed ONE Campaign  ‘the campaign to Make Poverty History’.  Radiohead’s efforts will undoubtedly be compared to the lead singer of Coldplay, Chris Martin‘s, very public support of Oxfam’s ‘Make Trade Fair’ campaign during which he focused on revising the inequitable trade rules between developed and developing countries. By contrast, Radiohead’s approach addresses a difficult subject, seemingly raising more difficult questions about Western consumers’ complicity in the exploitation of workers.

We are pleased that such inspirational and influential artists as Radiohead have chosen to highlight these issues. They have the ability to frame them in new and powerful ways, which can only help in spreading the message to new audiences.

For those who want to catch a glimpse of the programme, the BBC has posted some interesting clips on You Tube:

• Richard discusses wages and the barriers to education with a factory worker.
• Georgina discusses the conditions for migrant workers with a factory manager.

It is testament to the growing interest in ethical trade that the programme has been made at all, but it is far from the only ethical trade project in media at the moment. Alexa Chung is planning a similar experiment in her own sweat shop in Covent Garden, while the BBC has recently launched a website about ethical trade in the fashion industry. This new interest in ethical trade, and the BBC TV programme in particular, has created quite a stir in the blogosphere and have been the subject of several blogs.

New interest in ethical trade is always warmly received, and if media projects such as these can help change consumer attitudes to working conditions abroad, then companies will feel even more pressure to control standards in their supply chains.

• Wages for sportswear workers are still well below a local living wage.
• In some cases, workers are not even receiving the legal minimum wage, despite working 12-13 hours a day.

This very much echoes the results of Impactt’s report Progress not Perfection which found that workers were not receiving the legal minimum wage at 60% of the factories we visited.

The report critiques the activities of sportswear brands like Nike and adidas on introducing “lean” manufacturing systems as a way of improving wages and reducing working hours.  The problem is that managers are tempted to hang on to increased profits from efficiency gains, rather than handing them over to workers in the form of higher pay.  Purchasers are also keen to get a slice of the cake asking for better prices from more efficient factories.

We at Impactt agree that this is a big problem.  One of our productivity experts in China comments:

“The report tells the truth about lean manufacture.  Even if a factory makes massive improvements in efficiency, it does not guarantee that the managers will share the benefits with workers. Some well-managed factories only pay workers the legal minimum wages, not what we consider to be living wages.  We have some concerns about the outcomes of productivity improvement.  Sometimes it seems we are helping factories get more money through increasing their productivity, but we do not have the power to request managers share the benefits with workers.”  

In the battle to increase wages, productivity improvements are a necessary tool, but they are not alone sufficient to make a difference for workers.  Where workers are able to bargain collectively, workers themselves can speak up for their share of the benefits.  But in the vast majority of the world’s workplaces, workers do not have the power to do this.  Instead, we are forced to rely on the goodwill of management.  But where management is genuinely committed to providing a better deal for workers, productivity measures (together with training better managers and supervisors and the development of routes for workers to express their views) are vital in supporting better wages and reducing working hours.

Viewers of last Saturday’s episode of Doctor Who will have seen the pair arguing about the ethics of enslaving the Ood to further the human empire.  The Doctor’s view was that humans had always relied on slavery. When Donna exclaimed “I don’t have any slaves!” The Doctor replied, quick as a flash, “Who do you think made your clothes?” 

The Impactt team is eagerly awaiting the first mention of supply chain labour standards on The Archers.  A modest prize will be awarded for reports of future references in unexpected places! 

 This comes only two weeks after agency workers’ rights were dealt a blow in the form of a judgement in the Court of Appeal, which confirmed a prior ruling that agency workers cannot claim an employment relationship between worker and labour user, regardless of the amount of time they may have worked in a particular role. 

Gordon Brown’s support of a new Temporary and Agency Workers’ Commission seeks to bring together two parties (the TUC and CBI) that have historically had different views on the provision of rights to temporary and agency workers in the UK.  Both parties have taken radically different stances towards the Temporary and Agency Workers (Equal Treatment) Bill which is due to have its second reading in Parliament later this month.   The Bill, which is sponsored by Andrew Miller MP, seeks to extend the rights of agency workers towards equality with those of permanent employees.  

This appears to be a significant turn around by the Labour government that had blocked the Temporary Agency Work Directive which has been stalled in the EU Parliament since 2002, largely due to the actions of Britain and Ireland. The Directive’s future now looks much rosier thanks to the fact that France takes over the presidency of the EU later this year.  

The TUC has championed the opinion that the labour force should be de-casualised and that all workers should have equal employment rights. The CBI has argued that the blocking of the Directive in the EU was a cause for celebration and that millions of jobs in the UK would have been lost if the Directive had been ‘bullied through Brussels’.  

The step by Brown is said to represent a move away from the ‘Blairite’ policies of the Labour party, and a return to their core values, which include equal treatment. The commission is set to establish a process to identify comparable full time workers and therefore determine what equal pay and conditions would look like for agency workers, and how this might work under any future EU directives. 

However, some MPs and unionists have condemned the move, arguing that it is yet another stalling tactic on the part of the government. They argue that the commission will appear to support the Temporary and Agency Workers (Equal Treatment) Bill, but will actually prevent it becoming law, and will waste time on assessing the current rights of such workers, which have long been known to be inadequate and open to exploitation. Today’s Guardian reports that union leaders fear that the formation of the commission is being pushed forward in order to prevent a likely backbench rebellion on the Bill.  

Impactt has promoted the rights of all workers, including agency and temporary workers, through our work conducting assessments and training.  Much of our work on this issue has focused on mediating towards the provision of permanent jobs for long term agency workers, and ensuring that the reliance on agency labour is kept to a minimum, covering seasonal peaks in production, holidays and sick absences. This practice allows long term agency workers to move into permanent positions with full employment rights, and allows companies to utilise a relatively casual workforce whilst increasing their permanent capacity.   

By adopting a proactive approach to the use of agency labour, workplaces can ensure that they minimise the likelihood of exposure to media campaigns and negative coverage as a result of differential treatment of staff on their site.  Once the commission is established, Impactt encourages all interested parties to submit responses in order to ensure a fully effective process.  We also keenly await reports on the upcoming second reading of the Bill on Friday and believe that the increased attention that the two Parliamentary measures, and the EU Directive, are bringing to the debate will only reinforce the message to employers; and thereby benefit a section of the labour force that has been largely invisible for some time.

It appears that the labelling scheme may be based on the Rugmark model which monitors child labour in the carpet industry. The tracking may be similar to the Dutch initiative ‘Made-By’, who employ the use of distinctive blue buttons and an online tracking service to increase consumer visibility in retailers’ supply chains.  

We welcome both these initiatives, but would urge GAP to prioritise equally the rehabilitation and education of children involved in the garment industry. I would prefer to buy a garment which was labelled child labour free, if I was certain that any children who had previously worked in the supply chain were happily in school and improving their life chances.  Maybe GAP could consider sharing the grades and progress of former child workers to demonstrate a truly responsible approach to making the world a better place.