Update on China Earthquake: Response from UK Brands
Wednesday, 23 July 2008 17:25
On 28th May 2008, Labour Behind the Label sent a letter to over 15 UK brands asking what steps they were taking to ensure Chinese migrant workers at their supplier factories, whose families may have been affected by the May earthquake, were being granted compassionate leave and assistance. These included Arcadia, Asda Walmart, Primark, M&S and Tesco. Only three companies, Primark, M&S and Next, responded.
Below is a summary of each company's response along with our analysis of what has been done. Despite the fact that, with the exception of NEXT, the answers received did not fully address the question about what these companies were doing themselves to provide relieve for workers in their factories, at least they had made some efforts to respond. It is disappointing that even at such a tragic time so few companies are willing to extend compassion to those workers stitching their clothes.
Next:
Next responded promptly, assuring their full support for the memo issued by the Guangdong Provincial Labour and Social Security Department. They stated that they had contacted their suppliers in the region to ensure they were aware of the memo, and that they were providing assistance to those workers who were most affected by the tragedy.
In addition, NEXT have made a donation to the earthquake relief fund and the Red Cross as have several of their suppliers. They are also looking into providing garments to victims of the earthquake.
As for direct financial assistance to the workers affected, Next is liaising with their suppliers to offer support to workers whose houses were damaged. For example, one supplier provided RMB3000 (GBP200) to each worker affected in this manner, as well as an additional RMB2000 (GBP133) for a worker whose father had been injured.
Next's response was positive as they not only affirmed their full support for the memo, but have taken several steps to actively comply with it. Their general donation to victims of the earthquake as well as financial assistance given directly to workers who have been affected is a a good example of how a company can actively support the workers in their supply chains, if the desire to do so genuinely exists.
Primark:
Primark's response was the most minimal of the three we received, stating that they were aware of the situation and have 'donated a six figure sum to the earthquake victims and their families.'
Although providing a general donation at least demonstrates some sort of response to the situation, Primark has not made any attempt to ensure that their suppliers are providing assistance to their workers, nor have they made any attempt to ensure the wellbeing of the workers employed in Primark's own supply chains.
Labour Behind the Label feels in this case that as a major retailer for clothes produced in the areas where the earthquake occurred, Primark should be doing more to support workers in its own supply chain who have been affected by these events.
Marks and Spencer:
Marks and Spencer replied to inform us that investigation at their local office had determined that none of their colleagues, workers, or factories had been affected by the earthquake. Regardless, they felt that under the circumstances a corporate donation was appropriate leading to their donation of one million RMB to the disaster fund
They also agreed to ensure that all of their suppliers were aware of the memo and indicated that their suppliers in the region would be contacted to see if garments could be donated to the local Red Cross.
Further communication from Marks and Spencer revealed that many of their factories in the affected areas had indeed posted the memo, and that some were not only paying their workers leave but covering their transportation costs as well.
By making a donation and ensuring that local suppliers were posting the memo and complying with its recommendations, Marks and Spencer has taken some positive steps in the right direction. However, Label Behind the Label feels that this response was the minimum needed and that Marks and Spencer could take more direct responsibility for the welfare of the workers involved.
