Responded to survey: yes
MSI involvement: no
Grade 1: Accepts the principle of a living wage, but applies legal minimum/industry benchmark. [what's this?]
Summary
Levi Strauss has now slightly updated its code to acknowledge the right to a living wage, but continues to use minimum wages as its benchmark. It has included in its submission work to support infrastructure that could lead to improved rights to freedom of association, and government lobbying in Bangladesh and Cambodia. The direct work being done with its suppliers, however, remains very limited.
Position on living wages
Levi Strauss & Co believes ‘everyone who works has the right to wages ensuring a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of themselves and of their family including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services’ ‘Within out supply chain, we will: ensure our contract suppliers provide local minimum wages or prevailing industry wage, whichever is higher, as well as required overtime premiums and benefits…’
Living Wage Benchmark
None given.
Position on freedom of association
Levi Strauss says that it strongly supports a worker’s right to establish and join organisations of his or her own choosing, including trade unions. ‘Within our supply chain we will: ensure our suppliers respect freedom of association and collective bargaining.’
Work so far on living wages
The only work Levi Strauss outlined that explicitly includes increasing wages as an aim was a wage and productivity project with four Chinese suppliers. Levi Strauss told us that, across the four factories, working hours were shortened by 12–15% and average wages increased from 20–44%. No information was provided on how workers were involved in the design and implementation of the programme, if they were, or the mechanisms used to ensure productivity gains were passed on.
Levi Strauss mentioned some work to resolve freedom of association violations in Cambodia, Haiti and Mexico, although the Haiti case dates back several years and no details of the outcomes in Cambodia and Mexico were provided. It also provided financial support to trade union capacity projects in Vietnam and the Cambodian Arbitration Committee, although it is unclear if this has or will translate to direct improvements in its own supply chain.
In line with the company’s view that governments should be responsible, Levi Strauss has engaged with governments in Bangladesh, Cambodia and Mexico on minimum wage and freedom of association.
Plans on living wages
Levi Strauss is planning some pilot project work to replicate and scale wage and productivity programmes. One project is now being considered in Cambodia. In May, a plan to establish a new ‘terms of engagement’ for the company’s ethics was announced. It plans to ‘move beyond a compliance model of “do no harm” towards supporting factory based programs that will help empower workers to improve their lives’.
As part of this announcement the company stated that it plans to ‘work closely with governments, unions, industry associations, and other stakeholders to figure out how we can raise wages across the industry. We look forward to a robust dialogue with our stakeholder group on this topic to find potential solutions we can pilot in the new Terms of Engagement.‘
Other significant information
Other work mentioned by Levi Strauss included the development of performance ratings based on some ethical considerations, joining the ILO ‘Better Factories’ programme in Cambodia and supporting ‘Better Work’ capacity building, monitoring, remediation, worker education programmes in Haiti, Indonesia, Lesotho, Nicaragua and Vietnam. It also mentioned the provision of financial education to workers and micro credit programmes.
Our comments
Levi Strauss is less adamant this year in its refusal to accept responsibility for wage levels, but its submission shows that the direct work being done with suppliers to implement higher wages remains very limited. In line with its belief that governments and markets should set wages Levi Strauss has done some lobbying work toward the Cambodian and Bangladeshi governments, but has also been embroiled in a controversy over the raising of the minimum wage in Haiti. Although Levi Strauss denies that its supplier was involved in business moves to oppose the minimum wage law this year, it seems it missed the opportunity to publicly advocate an increase. Levi’s itself points out that it only has one supplier in Haiti (mentioned above) and that the minimum wage law was passed anyway. We would, however, like to see more public support of minimum wage increases in supplier countries from companies like Levi Strauss which continue to rely on legally set standards as core wage policies.
Some of the information in the Levi Strauss submission was fairly old. For example, the resolution of the Haiti case took place in 2005 and yet, it is included in their 2011 report. It would be helpful for Levi’s to ensure that they are clear on the time frame of activities they are reporting on.
Like many companies, Levi Strauss have been wooed by the win-win-win arguments of productivity proponents. Its only project which directly links to wages in its own supply chain is, therefore, almost entirely productivity focused. It claims this programme has reduced working hours and increased wages. However, there were no concrete figures to show whether suppliers are meeting living wage levels and no details given on how, or if, workers were involved in the design and implementation of the project.
Overall, Levi Strauss’s work continues to push responsibility on to other actors and away from its own actions. Its purchasing practices work focuses on pushing suppliers to perform better, its freedom of association work focuses largely on financial support for the ILO and its wages work focuses on limited government lobbying and teaching workers to manage their finances better. Any meaningful Corporate Social Responsibility work must also examine the impact of a company’s own actions. We would like to see more evidence of Levi Strauss & Co taking responsibility for its own purchasing decisions, including pricing, taking practical steps to support freedom of association in their supplier factories and working with others to design and implement programmes that aim to deliver real, measurable changes for workers producing Levi Strauss goods.
