Fairtrade must not be a fig leaf: an open letter to Marks and Spencer
Monday, 22 May 2006 22:13
Marks and Spencer has announced an extension of its range of products made with Fairtrade cotton, to include jeans and underwear. In an open letter to M&S, which forms part of a wider correspondence, LBL calls on the company to take further steps to ensure that Fairtrade does not become a fig leaf for the wider action needed on workers' rights.
Katie Stafford and Julia Dobson
Marks & Spencer
8th Floor East
Waterside House
35 North Wharf Road
London
W2 1NW
22nd May 2006
Dear Katie and Julia,
Fairtrade cotton
Thank you for taking the time to consider and respond to the points we raised. I want to begin by emphasising that LBL sees Fairtrade cotton as a positive development – one long overdue - for the farmers involved.
As you know, we represent a different set of stakeholders: workers in the cut, make and trim stage of production. Fairtrade cotton does not offer additional guarantees or benefits forthese workers, nor does it set out to do so, though we look forward to seeing the results of the work currently being undertaken by FLO to address this. Our concern is therefore to ontinue to push for improved working conditions for these workers.
We hope that consumers do buy products made with Fairtrade cotton, and that the range expands, but only if in doing this consumers are not encouraged to stop putting pressure onall companies, M&S included, who could do more to safeguard workers' rights. Fairtradeshould not be a fig leaf.
LBL still believes that a statement making explicit the limitations of the Fairtrade cotton mark, along the lines of “Fairtrade cotton guarantees working conditions in the cotton growing stage of the production chain only, and not the subsequent manufacturing stages”, is necessary. Our experience is that without this, consumers' trust of the Fairtrade brand is such that they will not appreciate the subtleties of the issue, and will believe that the products they are buying are fairly traded from start to finish (most likely this means that the potential for poor working conditions in later stages of production will simply not cross their minds). If this trust is not to be abused, it is therefore important that workers get a fair deal throughout the supply chain for Fairtrade cotton products.
Furthermore, as M&S' recent marketing campaign demonstrates, M&S intends to reap the benefits of its involvement with Fairtrade in terms of PR and marketing, with the rest of itsproducts benefiting from a halo effect. This is perhaps less of a concern for a company,such as M&S, which has gone further than many high street clothing retailers, but we still feel – and hope you agree – that there is more that M&S could do to guarantee workers'rights in its supply chain, and that it is important consumers are aware of this. Additionally,we are keen that M&S set a precedent for the other retailers who we know will jump on board the Fairtrade cotton bandwagon in time.
To use the term 'sweatshop' is perhaps to introduce a misconception into the discussion. Poor working conditions are, as you know, endemic in the industry. Were all companies to adhere to the demands we set out in our letter to the Fairtrade Foundation, this would not bethe case. Hence they are the yardstick that we consider appropriate, for the reasons set out above, for products bearing the Fairtrade cotton mark. We hope that, in time, they will become standard across the industry.
To turn to these demands, which I have re-grouped a little for clarity:
1. Membership of a multistakeholder initative
We are of course well aware of M&S' membership of the ETI, and this demand was aimed more at other companies than yourselves. In the light of your undertakings to become moreactive within the ETI, we'd like to ask what concrete forms this will take. While a lot of good work is done within the ETI, companies can sometimes use their membership as a way of stalling, to avoid taking the substantive steps throughout their supply chains thatcampaigners demand.
2. Monitoring and verification, multistakeholder audits and external access
Our assessment of the evidence, consistent with a growing body of opinion, is that commercial audits are not effective tools to pick up and address the widespread abuses of workers' rights that are endemic in the industry. Some of this evidence is set out in a recent report by our international network .
For this reason, we cannot accept that such audits are an appropriate tool to substantiateworking conditions in suppliers of products bearing the Fairtrade cotton mark, nor can they be described as “robust”. We understand your arguments about the complexity of implementing a multistakeholder system or even 'due diligence' audits across your supplierbase; however, until M&S does this, we cannot share your confidence in M&S' monitoring and verification system.
This is not just a matter of concern for workers: as we expected, there has already been an increased interest from the media in scrutinising the supply chains of products bearing the Fairtrade cotton mark. If working conditions are not genuinely decent, this creates a significant risk for M&S and for the Fairtrade movement as a whole. It is entirely possiblethat, if the suppliers involved have only been subjected to commercial audits, journalists will be able to find evidence of abuses of workers’ rights. This was the case with a recent articlein the Observer concerning a factory in Cambodia, which had passed numerous such audits.
Our view is that a robust system must at the very least involve multi-stakeholder oversight of audit processes, to place workers at the centre of the process, and must extend beyond audits to incorporate other steps such as partnership with local organisations, grievance and complaints mechanisms, education and training, a pro-active approach to freedom ofassociation, addressing purchasing practices, effective remediation, and increased transparency.
We do not see how participation in a multistakeholder audit can be optional for the supplier: it should be compulsory for suppliers of products bearing the Fairtrade cotton mark. If the cost to suppliers of complying with such a process are, as you suggest, prohibitive for them, we believe quite simply that M&S should pick up the tab.
3. Freedom of Association
Clearly it would be wrong to insist that a union is imposed on workers, since that would devalue the nature of such a union (this was perhaps a miswording of our original demand).However, given the role that unions can play in raising working conditions and facilitating effective monitoring and verification, this is not an issue which can be separated from that of ensuring acceptable working conditions.
M&S can and should be taking a more pro-active approach to facilitating access to the right to freedom of association in suppliers of products bearing the Fairtrade cotton mark. This means more than ensuring management does not oppress unions. It means education of workers and management by local labour rights organisations or by unions themselves. It could also mean positive discrimination in sourcing decisions towards factories where acollective bargaining agreement is in place.Your willingness to consider how you can do more on this issue is welcome, and we encourage you to discuss our recommendations with the ITGLWF, the competent body onfreedom of association.
4. Transparency
Openness about factory names and locations is another cornerstone of an effective approach to monitoring and verification. While we accept that disclosure of M&S' full factory list may not be on the cards at this time, for suppliers of products bearing the Fairtrade cotton mark it should be. We do not accept the Fairtrade Foundation's description of the supply chain as 'transparent', since to us this would require its public availability. While disclosure both to the FTF and within the ETI is a positive step, it is not the same as transparency, which remains our demand. How else can consumers be as confident as youare about working conditions?
I will end as I began, by reiterating that Fairtrade cotton is a positive step. It is also important to make clear that we view M&S as one of the more progressive companies on the UK high street in terms of workers' rights. We also believe, however, that the role of Fairtrade is to raise the bar for the rest of the market, and as a consequence we see it as right and proper that M&S be held to a higher standard of scrutiny for its products bearing the Fairtrade cotton mark than other retailers and products that are not currently involved. We hope you agree with us on this point.
I look forward to receiving M&S' reaction to the three outstanding points set out above, and to hearing about any positive steps you intend to take on them.
Yours sincerely,
Martin Hearson
Campaign Coordinator
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
