Responded to survey: yes

MSI involvement: yes, Ethical Trading Initiative [what's this?]

Grade 1.0: Accepts the principle of a living wage, but applies legal minimum/industry benchmark. [what's this?]

Summary

Very disappointing. Gap received one of the highest grades in 2009 for its extensive plans to integrate worker and trade union representatives into the process of building a living wage, but this plan has now been discarded and little evidence given of any concrete plans to improve wages in the future. 

Position on living wages

‘We remain deeply committed to workers being paid a legal wage that is aligned both with national laws and with the Ethical Trading Initiative Base Code. We are aware that a minimum wage does not necessarily translate into a basic needs wage, but as you are aware, there remain instances in the apparel sector where certain factories find ways to deviate from abiding national labor laws around the minimum wage. As such, we have chosen to focus our efforts on identifying and subsequently addressing instances where factories are not in full accordance with our own COVC [code of vendor compliance] and with national labour laws.’

Living wage benchmarks

None given.

Position on freedom of association

‘Respect for workers’ right to organise so they are able to negotiate better wages, should they choose to do so is, in many parts of the world, a crucial antecedent to delivering basic needs wages.’

Work so far on living wages

Gap decided to abandon its previous work on living wages: ‘Following in-depth analysis... we concluded that our plan was not the most effective one available to us. There remained fundamental building blocks that needed to be put in place in some of our factories that we felt required attention before pursuing a pilot project, and the global economic crisis created conditions in which rolling out a new, long-term research project with suppliers was not feasible.’ Doubts as to the sustainability of the project ‘without broader industry support’ were also raised.

Gap has carried out a review of its purchasing practices, in collaboration with Women Working Worldwide. This has included changes to how suppliers are rated using a traffic light system, training for in-house design and planning teams on social responsibility, and a study into short lead times. Buyer training on the impact of buying decisions is also ongoing.

Gap cited some trainings for suppliers on key issues around freedom of association delivered in partnership with the international garment workers union (ITGLWF) in India, Indonesia and Sri Lanka. A partnership with SEWA, a home workers union in Northern India, was also mentioned.

Some engagement with ETI working groups was also mentioned. 

Plans on living wages

None.

Other significant information

Gap plans to refocus work on ‘vendor development’ to ‘lay the foundation for a more sustainable approach towards long-term improved wages.’ ‘By helping our suppliers develop key management systems and human resource systems, which we have found to be precursors to sustained compliance with our COVC, we are confident we will see a continuous minimization of social compliance violations, and a continuous rise in workers’ ability to confidently dialogue with management about their needs, including wages.’ The vendor development programme will involve HR training, management systems to allow better self regulation, and collaboration with other brands to avoid audit fatigue.

Our comments

The submission from GAP is highly disappointing and it feels like Gap has gone back to square one in its steps towards a living wage. For several years GAP was one of the companies leading the way in innovative, thoughtful programmes to address serious workers’ rights issues, including wages. It has now decided to revert to getting suppliers to ‘self regulate’ and ‘avoid audit fatigue.’ Its move away from active engagement with ethical issues back towards compliance is bad news for workers, who are unlikely to see any kind of gains from such an approach.

The reasons given for abandoning its promising project plan seem to be the lack of broader industry support for the involvement of trade unions in wage improvement. As a member of the ETI, Gap could have taken this forward in collaboration with a number of other retailers keen to work in this area, but has shied away from the problems it would inevitably encounter. This is disappointing.

Gap plans to work on developing good management and human resource systems with suppliers, which are needed. However, Gap supplied no evidence of plans to translate this work into real wage gains for workers. More worryingly, it states its intention to focus mainly on the achievement of compliance with minimum wages. This shift seems to suggest Gap has given up any plans to work towards providing living wages to workers in its supply chain altogether. We hope this isn’t the case.