|
A. THE C & A COMPANY AND THE CLEAN CLOTHES CAMPAIGN
A.1. Company Overview C & A is a
privately owned company established in 1841 in the Netherlands by
Clemens and August (C & A) Brenninkmeyer. The company is still
ruled by the Brenninkmeijer family, who carefully avoid publicity
and do not disclose any information on company strategy, performance
or employment. The number of C & A subsidiaries is unknown,
as are the precise relations with suppliers, the exact countries
in which the company is active, figures on direct and indirect employment
and on the company's profit rate. As the 'Corporate Intelligence
on Retailing' (1997) states, "...C & A 's penchant for
secrecy precludes any precise revelation of the size of its global
network and sales nor, indeed, a definitive picture of even its
European operations." (3). The company operates within a framework
of independent ownership and with independent management control
of production units for clothing. In other words, C & A largely
relies on the mechanism of subcontracting to delegate production
tasks to external manufacturers.
According to the Corporate Intelligence, C & A owns more than
600 outlets for the sale of clothes in Europe alone, and over 2000
worldwide. (4) There are stores in the Benelux, the UK, France,
Spain, Portugal, Italy, Austria, Switserland, Germany, Denmark,
the USA, Brazil and Japan. Research shows that C & A is also
active in Liechtenstein, the Dutch Antilles and Canada. In the USA,
C & A in 1995 was reported to control upwards of 1,450 clothing
outlets under various names (5). Furthermore, according to information
available to the Clean Clothes Campaign in 1996, 20 outlets and
a distribution centre in Argentina were due to be opened between
1996 and 2000 (6).
As to the situation in European countries - in the Netherlands
C & A is the biggest garment retailer with 91 shops and an estimated
turnover of 2 billion Dutch guilders (1996 research data). It also
has a stake in MARCA, a legally independent clothes chain with 32
stores in the Netherlands (plus a similarly large number in Belgium),
and is known to control 49 Foxy Fashion-shops. (7) In Germany, the
only country where C & A is legally obliged to disclose financial
information, the company ranks third among garment retailers (after
Karstadt and Metro), with about 185 stores and a turn-over in 1995
of DM 8 billion. In France C & A is a prominent clothing retailer
too. Average press speculation put the company's turn-over in 1996
at FrF 6.3 to 6.8 billion (8). In the United Kingdom, the total
number of C & A stores has been static at 120 over the last
few years, and the sales' total for these stores was estimated at
Lb 770 Million for 1995/1996 (9). Since March 1996, all of C &
A 's European operators have been sharing a single buying organisation
called the European Buying Service Company (EBSCO). In 1990, total
C & A -turnover was estimated to be over 10 billion Dutch guilders
(i.e. over 5 billion US Dollars).
C & A used to aim mainly at the lower, cheaper end of the market.
However, over the last few years the company has increasingly catered
for the middle range of the market. C & A stores in 1996 had
a reported 16 own brand labels (among them Avanti, Rodeo, Clockhouse,
Baby-Club) for specific groups of customers (10). Each brand is
allocated separate space in the store. C & A has buying houses
amongst others in Singapore, Hongkong and India. It claims, however,
to source out most of its clothing orders in Europe. According to
the company presentation made in London in 1997, C & A sources
65% of its merchandise from Europe, 25 from the Far East and 10%
from the rest of the world (11).
A.2. C & A's Code of Conduct
Since 1991, the company has - according to its own statements -
been using its own 'Code of Conduct for the Supply of Merchandise'.
As stated above, the Code was revised in 1996, when SOCAM was formed.
C & A 's Code of Conduct has since been the subject of significant
communication and debate between the company and campaign groups
connected to the European Clean Clothes Campaign (CCC) in a number
of European countries. In 1996 and 1997, C & A was approached
amongst others by campaign representatives of the CCC in Belgium,
the Netherlands, France, Switserland and the United Kingdom. In
the UK for example, a meeting was held in which representatives
of the British charity Oxfam stressed the inadequacy of the existing
Code to company officials of C & A (12).
C & A claims that by revising the Code and setting up SOCAM,
it has fundamentally restructured it buying policies. At the London
Conference of October 1997, C & A 's company representative,
Chris Williams, stated that the SOCAM auditing team makes in excess
of one thousand unannounced visits each year to production units
making merchandise for C & A. Where suppliers are found not
to comply with C & A 's Code, business is either stopped or
warnings are issued (13). However, although the company's Code of
Conduct covers a number of basic criteria - such as child labour,
forced labour, wages, health and the safety of workers, it has been
criticised for being too vague and for failing to cover various
aspects detailed below. The lack of independence of C & A 's
monitoring system is a further key weakness of C & A's present
procedures.
The existing Code is vague on most counts. Firstly, regarding relations
with subcontractors, the Code expresses the intention to "develop
longterm relations". C & A also requires that its suppliers
operate on the principle of "fair and honest dealing"
with those with whom suppliers do business. Yet the exact meaning
of this wording is unclear. While the Code rejects the "exploitation"
of child labour, the company does not give a clear definition of
what it considers to be child labour and fails to give a concrete
age-limit. On wages, the Code states that these must be "fully
comparable with local norms" and "comply with local laws".
Since minimum wages in many countries are below subsistence, this
formulation fails to ensure that workers are paid a living
wage which genuinely covers their basic needs. Thus, an
initial critique of the Code is that there is a lack of clarity
regarding the meaning of the principles stated.
A second criticism relates to the basic human rights of garment
workers, which should have been, but are not defined by C &
A's Code of Conduct. The most important of these is the right of
workers to join a union of their choice without the fear of being
penalised for trade union activity. Although C & A has indicated
it is considering inclusion of this right in a future (further revised)
Code, the lack of the workers' democratic right to organise is a
key omission in the existing Code. Another key omission concerns
working hours: there is no reference whatsoever to the length of
working time in the existing Code. Nor does the Code provide any
form of social security. Since the majority of the workers in the
garment sector are women, paid maternity leave is a crucial issue,
- one of the key improvements in working conditions that urgently
need to be achieved in the sector. Along with three other issues,
the right to maternity leave was included in the agreement signed
between the owners' association and the trade union movement in
Bangladesh in November of last year (14).
Thirdly, campaign participants of the Clean Clothes Campaign criticise
C & A 's monitoring procedures. SOCAM is an internal monitoring
system rather than an external system of auditing. As none of SOCAM's
reports are available to outsiders, there is no way in which consumers'
organisations or others can check the validity of C & A 's claim
about the number of inspections that are made and the methodology
and the findings of SOCAM 's inspections. Information collected
by SOCAM is available only to C & A. Thus, like most other retailers
which have adopted their own Codes of Conduct, C & A too has
failed to develop a truly independent system of monitoring for its
Code, and to involve unions, NGOs and other social actors in the
process. This weakness of the Code like the previous mentioned weaknesses,
is an essential weakness. Without a truly independent system of
monitoring, the CCC argues, fundamental improvements in working
conditions in the garments' sector cannot be achieved (15).
A.3. C & A and the Workers' Right to Form Unions
Below I will further elaborate two of the criticisms on C &
A's Code listed above. First, the issue of the workers' right to
form unions. The demand that workers who are employed by garment
retailers, and those employed by their suppliers, be granted the
right to form independent organisations to defend their own interests,
has been a key demand of the Clean Clothes Campaign ever since it
was launched. The demand was incorporated in the Fair Trade Charter
when this was formulated, and it has continued to figure prominently
in discussions between campaign groups and retail traders. When
at the start of the European tour of the Clean Clothes Campaign
in April, 1996, a Tribunal was held in Amsterdam, the Netherlands,
its jury forcefully argued the need to emphasize this demand among
the various demands for improvements in garment workers' rights.
Multinational retailers, on the other hand, have been conspicuously
slow in responding to the demand for recognition of trade union
rights.
The C & A company is no exception to this rule. As noted above,
its present Code refrains from making any reference to trade union
rights, which suggests that the company so far has found this demand
specially difficult to accept. The company's longstanding tradition,
as wellknown, has been to discourage involvement in trade union
activities by its employees, including by salespersonnel in its
shops. When an indepth-investigation was carried out regarding the
C & A-company by researchers of the Dutch SOMO (Centre for Research
on Multinational Corporations), in the late 1980s, sales-women who
were interviewed made statements such as that "the word trade
union is a curse within C & A" and that the company "makes
clear that union membership will certainly harm your carreer"
(16). Given the repressive climate in C & A shops (and given
the economic benefits C & A reportedly granted its personnel),
the degree of organising amongst personnel was found to be extremely
low (17).
The question now is whether the attitude of C & A towards union
organising has substantially changed in eight years of campaigning
by activists of the Clean Clothes Campaign. The question is particularly
relevant since the public relations' officer of C & A in the
Netherlands, Jaap Bosman, has claimed that the issue of trade union
rights will very soon be incorporated in the company's Code (which
covers both establishments controlled directly by C & A and
establishments controlled by C & A 's suppliers) (18). Trade
union officers in the UK and the Netherlands who are responsible
for organising employees in C & A 's shops, interviewed by this
author in April (1998), however, confirm that it continues to be
extremely difficult to organise C & A-personnel. Questioned
about the reasons, the Dutch official indicated that those shop-employees
who decide to become a union member insist that all information
they provide to union officials about the company be kept secret;
she indicated that no C & A-personnel dares to join the union
committee that prepares for central negotiations with retail traders,
and that managers of C & A 's continue to bar the sale of the
union paper from the shops (19).
Clearly, a change of wording in the company's Code, if and when
it comes, would have to be accompanied by a massive change of culture
in C & A 's own establishments. Furthermore, it would be particularly
important to see whether a clause on trade union organising in C
& A 's Code would be clearly worded, rather than be another
vague statement of principle. The 'Code of Labour Practices for
the Apparel Industry Including Sportswear' agreed upon by participant
coalitions of the European Clean Clothes Campaign contains a clause
on trade union organising which may be used to assess formulations
on the issue. This Code stipulates: "the right of all workers
to form and join trade unions and to bargain collectively shall
be recognized (ILO Conventions 87 and 97). Workers' representatives
shall not be the subject of discrimination and shall have access
to all workplaces necessary to enable them to carry out their representation
functions (ILO Convention 135 and Recommendation 143). Employers
shall adopt a positive approach towards the activities of trade
unions and an open attitude towards their organisational activities."
(20).
A.4. Doubts about the Function of SOCAM
Doubts regarding the method of operation and the function of SOCAM
(Service Organisation for Compliance Audit Management) may also
be specified. According to the presentation made by C & A 's
public relations officer Chris Williams in October of 1997, the
introduction of the monitoring system involved an elaborate process
of preparations (such as the setting up of the necessary data bases,
recruiting and training SOCAM-staff and training C & A-managers,
and the translation of the company's Code into all European languages.
He further stated that through the Sourcing Department of C &
A 's buying organisation EBSCO, written confirmation was received
"from every supplier throughout the world" stating that
they will permit SOCAM to make unannounced visits at any time to
factories which are being used to make merchandise for C & A.
Further, C & A claims to have developed an effective methodology
to deal with infringements on the Code and to discourage violations
by its suppliers (21).
While more independent research is required before we are in a
position to fully assess the implications of SOCAM's existence,
it is possible to refer to an initial experience in gathering data
about C & A 's monitoring practices, i.e. an investigation about
garments production in Roumania carried out by SOMO-searchers recently.
This field investigation, amongst others, covered five C & A-suppliers.
In each case factory managers interviewed confirmed their company's
relationship with C & A. The SOMO-investigation, however, could
not discern any systematic approach of C & A 's towards monitoring.
To one small production unit C & A apparently did send a team
which checked on working conditions, including wages and sanitary
facilities. But elsewhere C & A inspectors reportedly did not
look at wages, or did not raise any questions about environmental
or social standards. No evidence was unearthed indicating that C
& A distributed its Code of Conduct to suppliers. No company
inspectors took the trouble to interview workers. The investigation
in Roumania does indeed raise doubts about C & A 's monitoring
procedures (22).
C & A 's response to the Clean Clothes Campaign in setting
up its own internal monitoring system must be carefully assessed
before final conclusions are drawn. Yet it is useful - given the
prima facie doubts already mentioned - to recall the way the
multinational Nestle has responded to demands raised by international
campaigners against breastmilk substitutes. A key demand of campaign
groups was that multinationals adhere to the International Code
of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes which the WHO Assembly adopted
in 1981, in response to intense lobbying activities by campaigners.
Nestle, the campaign's main target company, subsequently created
a committee, known as the Muskie Committee, with the task to 'monitor'
Nestle's marketing practices. The Committee was presented as an
"independent social audit committee". However, IBFAN,
i.e. the International Baby Food Action Network, has described the
Muskie Committee as a tool to "undercut independent monitoring",
and as a device to divert press attention and win away constituencies
(23).
The question may legitimately be asked whether C & A has launched
the SOCAM primarily as a public relations' exercise, or with sounder
aims in mind. In the case of Nestle, there is proven evidence that
the idea of the formation of the Muskie Committee sprouted from
the head of a public relations' expert hired by the multinational.
The idea originated with Raphael Pagan, described in a recent Corner
House publication as "an experienced PR executive", who
was appointed to lead Nestle's counter-operation against the international
baby food campaign (24). Pagan identified the building of the monitoring
committee as a key feature of his 'social awareness strategy' (25).
Since the formation of a monitoring unit that is 'independent' in
name, is a key strategem used by both Nestle and C & A in reaction
to strong and persistent international campaigns against their malpractices,
it is legitimate to question C & A 's motives in the formation
of SOCAM. The evidence collected by independent researchers so far
indicates that SOCAM is not effectively monitoring working conditions,
and suggests it may be part of a consciously planned public relations
strategy.
B. THE EVIDENCE TO BE PRESENTED AT THE FORUM
A number of witness accounts will be presented at the International
Clean Clothes Forum, further testifying to the above-mentioned weaknesses
in C & A 's Code of Conduct and monitoring procedures. One of
the issues to be highlighted, by a Belgian trade union representative,
is the workers' right to organise. Other witnesses will be: a Zimbabwean
and a Bangladeshi trade union leader, a representative of an Indian
non-governmental organisation and a Pakistani and Indian homeworker
from the United Kingdom. Below, we present preliminary accounts
regarding C & A 's practices in two Southern countries. The
case of the negotiations between C & A's buying house in Tirupur,
India, and an Indian non-governmental organisation called SAVE,
casts doubt over C & A 's willingness to implement even elementary
provisions of its Code. The case of working conditions at C &
A 's subcontractors in Zimbabwe, to be presented by the Zimbabwean
trade unionist, is an important illustration of the inadequacy and
ineffectiveness, of C & A 's existing Code of Conduct, even
if this Code were implemented. The issues that figured in last year's
conflict in Zimbabwe's garment sector, so far, are not covered by
C & A's Code.
B.1. C & A and the Memorandum (MOU) on Child Labour
in Tirupur, India:
Tirupur, a city in the state of Tamil Nadu, in South India, is
known for exporting knitted underwear. The production and export
of underwear has seen an explosive growth in recent years, in line
with the general expansion of garment exports from India. Whereas
in 1984, the value of underwear exports from Tirupur reportedly
amounted to Rs.9.69 Crores, it reached Rs.1332.00 Crores a decade
later, in 1994. In 1994, Tirupur's share in the total export of
knitted garments from India was estimated to be 45 percent (26).
Thus, in a period when readymade garments were rapidly turning into
India's chief foreign exchange earner (contributing 18% to the value
of all commodities exported form India by 1994/1995), Tirupur's
importance as a centre of export production grew accordingly: it
holds "the pride of place of India in terms of major foreign
exchange earnings." (27).
The expansion of Tirupur's garment industry is said to be mainly
due to the industry's production structures. Here, manufacturing
units have developed as 'single task units' rather than combining
all aspects of production in one unit. This means that "exporters
get their yarn knitted in one place, bleached and dyed in another
place, at a third place it will be printed with a design, and finally
they get the knitted fabric cut, stitched and finished again in
another unit", as reported in an investigation carried out
by the India Committee of the Netherlands (ICN) (28). Other factors
that have favoured Tirupur's growth as production centre are, the
easy availability of yarn from nearby towns, the availability of
water for dyeing, bleaching and printing from a local river, and
a cheap labour force. Reportedly, Tirupur is surrounded by large
drought-prone areas, where many families suffer from severe poverty
and where unemployment is widespread (29).
The ICN-research (November 1996) while recognizing that labour
conditions in Tirupur generally were poor, focused on the incidence
of child labour. According to the report, based on visits to 15
hosiery units, and on intensive interviews with child labourers,
the operations performed by children were: helping the tailors,
checking, stitching, cutting threads, finishing and packing. During
factory visits, children were also found at work in dyeing and bleaching
units, with serious risk to their health (30). Working hours for
the children were exceedingly long, just as for adult workers. Most
of the children reportedly worked 12 to 16 hours per day for 6 days
in a week. While the income from the children's labour formed an
important source of survival for their families (31), all the children
interviewed by the ICN-researcher suffered from physical exhaustion
(32). Estimates of the number of child labourers ranged from 8,000
to 35,000, out of a total workforce of 300,000.
Children were found to be working in units producing knitted garments
for C & A, which is one of the European retail trading companies
doing extensive business with exporters and manufacturers in Tirupur.
It does so through its own subsidiary organisation Mondial, which
acts on behalf of C & A's buying organisation, EBSCO. According
to officials of Mondial, this C & A subsidiary deals with 1200
units out of 3000 units in the Tirupur knitwear industry (33). Thus,
C & A undoubtedly is a key purchaser of Tirupur knitwear. The
prevailance of child labour in units producing for C & A was
revealed to the British public by two journalists, writing for the
Mail on Sunday (January 1995) (34) whilst the already mentioned
ICN-research further confirms the existence of children much younger
than 14 years of age employed by suppliers of C & A's (35).
In 1997, the Indian NGO SAVE approached the hosiery industry in
Tirupur, and specifically C & A's subsidiary Mondial, to discuss
measures to improve labouring conditions and steps to combat child
labour. A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was drafted which, inter
alia, aimed at ending the labour of children and promote the
rehabilitation of children. The MOU also comprised proposals for
independent monitoring. The substance of the proposed agreement
was in line with C & A's own Code of Conduct which states that
child labour is "absolutely unacceptable". Yet Mondial
subsequently backed out of the negotiations and refused to implement
structural measures to eliminate child labour, prefering instead
to donate money to a welfare project for children. Mondial did not
reply to the SAVE's request to release information on its own measures
to comply with C & A 's Code of Conduct (36).
The example of the discussions held by the Indian NGO SAVE and
Mondial thus raises serious questions as to C & A's commitment
to its own Code of Conduct. Given the political climate existing
in India at the time of the Mondial-SAVE discussions, an agreement
targeting the elimination of child labour would probably have been
welcomed in official circles. Thus, the state government of Tamil
Nadu, the state where Tirupur is located, sets goals towards the
elimination of child labour in its State Plan of Action, launched
in 1993. Concretely, this plan of action aimed at the elimination
of full-time child labour by children under 12 years' of age by
1998 (37). Concern about child labour was also expressed by India's
former government, headed by Narasimha Rao. A concrete commitment
towards abolition of child labour by C & A would therefore hardly
have been considered radical. Although it would not solve the problem
of poverty for those Tirupur families who depend on the income of
their children for survival, nor improve overall working conditions
in units producing for C & A, C & A 's non-acceptance of
the MOU indicates that the company is not seriously interested in
ensuring implementation of even a part of its own Code of Conduct.
B.2. Failure to Take Responsibility for Workers' Rights:
The Case of the Conflict in Zimbabwe:
The case of garment production in Zimbabwe is a second major example
to be cited during the session of the Internationmal Clean Clothes
Forum on C & A. The importance of Zimbabwean garments to Europe
has increased in recent years, although only a minor portion of
the country's textile and clothing production is as yet exported
(10 percent in 1994). Zimbabwe's total export income from the clothing
industry was estimated at 70 million US dollars in 1994. Out of
this total, 60 percent was from exports to European countries. The
textile and clothing sector was restructured following several crises
that rocked the sector in the first half of the 1990s. Subsequently,
production has shifted from large-scale factories to more 'flexible',
medium and small-scale companies. In 1996, the Zimbabwean clothing
and textile sector counted 274 registered companies, of which 225
were clothing factories. Most of these (98%) are in the hands of
(white) Zimbabweans (38).
The central issue in the Zimbabwean case-study is last year's labour
conflict in the country's clothing sector after the failure of annual
negotiations on the basic wage resulted in a ten days' workers'
strike and in the massive dismissal of garment workers. In April,
1997, trade unions started negotiations with the employers for a
wage raise of 69%, considered necessary in view of Zimbabwe's high
rate of inflation and the rising cost of living. The National Union
of Clothing Industries (NUCI), reportedly representing 95% of the
workers in the clothing industry, produced evidence of the hardship
suffered by its members, and data regarding the industry's profit
levels. According to the union, a family of 6 persons needed 441.80
Zim dollars for its weekly subsistence needs (excluding school fees,
medication and clothing). Yet the basic wage in the clothing industry
was only 166 Zim dollars (39). The negotiating process got stuck
over the precise wage increase to be granted. Without waiting for
the final outcome, clothing workers spontaneously went on a strike
on July 4, 1997.
Both the government of Zimbabwe and the employers' association
reacted vehemently to the strike. When the negotiations got stuck,
the unions and the employers took steps to settle the conflict through
an arbitrator who suggested a 25% wage increase (13 July). However,
the Ministry of Industrial Relations ignored the arbitration process
and instead issued a disposal order: all workers had to go back
to work before July 14th; failing this, the employers were free
to dismiss the workers. The Employers' Association of the Clothing
Industry took advantage of the government's position, and unanimously
took the decision to dismiss all garment workers. As a result, 13
thousand workers were dismissed. Out of those, 11 thousand were
hired back on a contract basis, i.e. under working conditions much
less favourable than previously when they were in 'fixed' wage-employment.
Under the new contracts, workers for instance can easily be fired.
Further, many of the workers dismissed in July of last year were
members of (elected) Workers' Committees and trade union activists.
According to NUCI-sources, the 2 thousand workers not taken back
by the employers were mainly members of Workers' Committees. By
dismissing them, the employers outlocked the unions and deprived
the workers of their right to organise (40).
The Zimbabwean conflict directly involved three parties, i.e. the
workers and their unions, garment employers and the government.
While the question of responsibility on the part of companies buying
from Zimbabwe was not raised, the issues involved in the conflict
- namely the question of a living wage and the workers' right to
form and join unions - are key issues in discussions between the
CCC and retailers in Europe. The nature of C & A 's relationship
to Zimbabwean garment manufacturers was revealed through an investigation
carried out by the Dutch research institute SOMO in 1997. Out of
11 companies covered by the research, 3 were reported to be C &
A -suppliers (41). According to the same research, there are indications
that C & A does send inspectors to check on some aspects of
work in the factories (such as toilets, fire-exits and child labour).
The effectiveness of the inspections however remains unclear. In
any case, these inspections cannot address the issues involved in
last year's labour conflict, since C & A 's Code of Conduct
does not stipulate the payment of a living wage
or the workers' right to join independent trade unions. Thus the
company takes no responsibility for wage improvements, nor does
it take resposibility to counter the dismissal of trade union activists.
SOMO's example of Winfield Barlana brings out C & A 's failure
to act. Winflied Barlana is a company employing 1200 people with
a yearly turn-over of US $ 11 million (1996-1997). It produces jeans,
shorts, cotton trousers and shirts for C & A in the whole of
Europe, C & A thus being one of the main customers of Winfield
Barlana (42). When the sector-wise workers' strike erupted in July
of last year, workers of Winfields joined the strike since they,
like Zimbabwean clothing workers elsewhere, could not make ends
meet on the existing wage. According to interviews SOMO held with
Winfield workers, at least at one of Winfield's production sites
employees were dismissed. The vague and incomplete clauses of C
& A 's present Code fail to oblige the retail trading company
to intervene in a labour conflict such as the one that occurred
at Winfields. Thus, the Zimbabwean conflict demonstrates the claim
that the C & A's present Code of Conduct does not ensure the
elementary rights of garment workers employed by its subcontractors.
Conclusion
As campaigning about exploitative working condition among C &
A's worldwide suppliers increased, the company has worked at improving
its image, revising its Code of Conduct, and instituting procedures
for monitoring the Code's contents via the Brussels- based institution
SOCAM. The change in policy indicates that C & A is getting
worried about its image among European consumers. Yet research carried
out by campaign-related groups and reports the Clean Clothes Campaign
has received from trade unions and non-governmental organisations
in both Southern and Northern countries bring out the fact that
C & A 's new policy does not yet fulfill the standards set by
the CCC. As the evidence presented above about India and Zimbabwe
well illustrates, there are good reasons to question C & A's
commitment towards its own Code of Conduct, as well as the adequacy
of the clauses it contains. Moreover, the system of monitoring instituted
by C & A is an internal system of monitoring rather than a system
of independent monitoring. Therefore, the Clean Clothes
Campaign calls upon C & A both to fundamentally revise and strengthen
its Code, and to agree to act on the basis of transparency, i.e.
accept that its business practices henceforth will be monitored
by an independent institution in which trade unions and consumer
organisations participate.
Dr.Peter Custers
Co-founder
Clean Clothes Campaign (CCC)
Amsterdam, April 23, 1998
Notes:
(1) see Corporate Intelligence on Retailing, London, 1997, p.406;
(2) the campaign was launched on the basis of the data collected
in the book 'C & A, De Stille Gigant - Van Kledingmultinational
tot Thuiswerkster' (C & A, The Silent Gigant - From Clothing
Multinational to Homeworker) by Marijke Smit and Lorette Jongejans,
SOMO, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, May 1989);
(3) Corporate Intelligence on Retailing, op.cit., p.406;
(4) op.cit., p.268;
(5) op.cit., p.407;
(6) Ineke Zeldenrust and Janneke van Eijk, 'Of Rags and Riches',
booklet published by the Clean Clothes Campaign, The Netherlands,
January, 1997, p.7;
(7) Corporate Intelligence on Retailing, op.cit., p.406; Ineke
Zeldenrust and Janneke van Eijk, op.cit.;
(8) Corporate Intelligence on Retailing, op.cit., p.173;
(9) ibid, p.635;
(10) Ineke Zeldenrust and Janneke van Eijk, op.cit.;
(11) Chris Williams, 'The Auditing of C & A's Code of Conduct
For the supply of merchanise' (LATC London Conference, Tuesday 21st
October 1997);
(12) records of the International Secretariat of the Clean Clothes
Campaign, Amsterdam, the Netherlands;
(13) Chris Williams, op.cit;
(14) the agreement between the Bangladesh Garment Manufacturers'
and Exporters' Association (BGMEA) and representatives of the trade
unions states: "Women workers employed in the sector wqill
be granted 12 months' paid maternity leave. The BGMEA will take
necessary steps to establish daycare centres. Whenever garment units
are established - the question of housing for workers in the area
will be given priority consideration.";
(15) see Shelagh Young's paper 'Commentary on C & A Code of
Conduct for the Supply of Merchandise', Oxfam United Kingdom, July
1996;
(16) Marijke Smit and Lorette Jongejans, op.cit., p.109;
(17) ibid, p.19;
(18) communication Jaap Bosman, April 1998;
(19) communication Karen Heynsdijk, trade union official for the
sector of retail trade, Federation of Dutch Trade Unions (FNV -Allies).
April 22, 1998;
(20) see 'Code of Labour Practices for the Apparel Industry Including
Sportswear', February 1998;
(21) Chris Williams, op.cit.;
(22) investigation carried out by Jantien Meyer and Esther de Haan,
March/April 1998 (unpublished report);
(23) Judith Richter, 'Engineering of Consent. Uncovering Corporate
PR', Corner House briefing paper, march 1998, p.8;
(24) op.cit., p.3;
(25) op.cit., p.8;'
(26) see Martine Kruijtbosch, 'Child and Adult Labour in the Export-Oriented
Garment and Gem Polishing Industry of India. With Case Studies from
Tirupur, Bangalore, Jaipur and Trichy' (India Committee of the Netherlands,
Utrecht, the Netherlands, November 1996, p.31);
(27) ibid;
(28) ibid, p.31;
(29) ibid, p.32;
(30) ibid, p.39; according to the author, "During factory
visits, children were also found at work in dying and bleaching
units. Two boys I had seen standing in a container of black paint
(e.g. water mixed with all kinds of chemicals and dyes) while they
coloured a piece of fabric.";
(31) ibid, p.55-56;
(32) ibid, p.43: "The child labourers (often two children
labourers per family), with parents who work in the hosiery industry,
contribute 30 to 40 percent to the family income.";
(33) information provided by Mondial-officials during their meeting
with SAVE- and SACCS-representatives, April 13, 1997;
(34) ibid, p.26;
(35) ibid, p.46 and p.48;
(36) correspondence between SAVE and SACCS (South Asian Coalition
on Child Servitude) and the India Committee of the Netherlands,
1997;
(37) see Martine Kruijtbosch, op.cit., p.33;
(38) see the report 'Profiles of Garment Exporting Companies in
Kenya, Madagascar, Mauritius and Zimbabwe', field research by Pit
Gooskens and Esther de Haan, SOMO (Centre for Research on Multinational
Corporations), Amsterdam,August 1997, p.119;
(39) Pit Gooskens and Esther de Haan, op.cit., p.121/122;
(40) ibid, p.120/121 and p.123;
(41) the companies refered to are: Cinderella Manufacturing (Ptt)
Ltd, a small company which produces girls' dresses for C & A-Germany;
Winfields Barlana which produces for C & A in the whole of Europe;
and African Threads where the sales' and marketing director confirmed
that C & A- Brussels is the company's most important customer
(70 to 80% of the company's exports were destined for C & A)
- see Pit Gooskens/Esther de Haan, op.cit., p.135, 147 and 150;
(42) ibid, p.147-149.
|
