About a decade after the adoption of the UN Guiding Principles (UNGP), it is clear that reliance on a voluntary framework has proven insufficient and ineffective for workers and the broader society. While various voluntary initiatives have been established from safety to wages and then some, research repeatedly reveals devastating facts. Working conditions and workers’ lives have not improved and the garment industry remains marred by endemic human rights violations and systematic exploitation.
Systemic patterns of human rights violations in the companies’ value chains speak volumes of a lack of systematic and meaningful Human Rights Due Diligence (HRDD) practice. Violations of freedom of association, poverty wages, even with extensive overtime, occupational health and safety issues, and gender-based discrimination and violence are frequently documented in numerous brands’ and retailers’ value chains – despite their public commitments that they would prevent such human and labour rights abuses. Neither non-judicial grievance mechanisms nor social auditing, certification schemes, or various (other) responsible business initiatives have had the impact touted at their launch.
Workers risk their lives to make T-shirts in crumbling buildings, many send their children to sleep hungry despite working 12, even 16-hour shifts, and many cannot even stay with their families because the cost of living near their workplace is prohibitive on poverty wages that workers are still being paid. Most of these workers being women, they also witness, and many experience, gender based violence and discrimination.
These are some of the issues that we hold garment companies directly responsible for, despite their smokescreens such as claims that by not being garment workers’ direct employers they are absolved of the responsibility to ensure safe and just working environments.
Clothing companies have responded to outside criticism of labour rights violations in their supply chains by promising to do better. Many use these voluntary commitments as a selling point, trying to signal that theirs is a socially conscious company.
The lofty Codes of Conduct and sugar coated public commitments since worker exploitation in outsourced factories was first widely exposed, in the 1990s, evaporated into thin air as soon as consumers’ gaze turned away.
What we do
As Clean Clothes Campaign, we are an active member in various coalitions and initiatives that ask for strong legislation.
Legislation that will guarantee the right to remedy when workers' rights are violated, that will ensure there is liability for the whole supply chain, and that includes climate and environmental considerations.
We believe there will be a need for legislation on various levels: a UN Binding Treaty, a strong EU legislation that includes special provisions for high-risk sectors like the garment industry, and national-level initiatives that can take further measures.
We want garment companies to clean up their act and the whole industry, and to do so now. Workers have waited far too long, with brands’ promises going unmet.
As a first step, we ask for binding agreements signed by brands and applicable at their supplier workplaces.
We want to see a series of enforceable supply chain agreements that will address specific issues within the supply chain. We want them to specify concrete measures as well as enforcement, supervision, complaint mechanisms and remedy.
These agreements are legally binding contracts that can be upheld in a court of law so brands cannot make promises that nobody holds them accountable for. They are voluntary in that garment brands individually opt in rather than face a legal requirement to sign on. These agreements create legal commitments, and if they are violated, brands can find themselves in courtrooms.
Examples of agreements that are a result of this strategy are the Accord on Fire and Building Safety in Bangladesh and the Freedom of Association Protocol in Indonesia. The latest such agreement addresses gender-based violence at factories in Lesotho, in the wake of Workers Rights Consortium’s investigation and subsequent negotiation with key buyers.
Next, we want to see enforceable supply chain agreements on wages.
We want due diligence to be a matter of regulatory compliance with not only clear enforcement mechanisms but also effective remedies. Human rights violations should be a matter of urgency for the garment and sportswear industry, it's time stakeholders work together to eradicate them from the supply chain.
Companies have a lot of money to spend on presenting their toothless measures as social consciousness, and many consumers buy into this narrative. Yet it must be clear after decades of trying and testing that voluntary commitments are not enough.
The alterative we advocate are binding agreements that address the root causes of major problems. The promises contained in those documents are legally binding, unlike the many lofty words that brands put together to ride the wave of ”sustainable” consumption.
What distinguishes such agreements from the regular worker-management or workplace collective bargaining agreements is that they are negotiated with brands and retailers. These are not garment workers’ direct employers, but as buyers from garment factories they have a responsibility for working conditions and workers' rights in their supply chains — and they are the ones that hold the vast majority of profits made in this multibillion dollar industry.
Another defining feature of such binding agreements is that they address a particular issue, such as worker safety in the case of the Accord, or freedom of association in Indonesia.
Furthermore, there must be clauses that make the agreement a binding contract that gives the possibility for legal redress. We also envisage high levels of transparency such as through periodic public reporting on compliance.
Whereas it is desirable for global union federations to be involved in the agreements, local trade unions are meant to play a central role, as signatories and in the implementation and enforcement. Therefore, the agreements should also empower the local trade unions and increase their political space.
Results: 152 Items
May 10, 2022
On 23 February 2022, the European Commission released its proposal for a directive on Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence. This directive could represent a landmark step forward in minimising the negative impacts of businesses on workers, communities and the environment worldwide. In response, over 220 NGOs and trade unions from around the world welcome the proposal as an essential and long-awaited step toward corporate accountability, responsible business conduct and access to justice. However, the proposal contains significant flaws that risk preventing the directive from achieving the positive impact that people, planet, and climate urgently need. The undersigned human rights, labour and environmental organisations and networks call on the European Parliament and EU Member States to strengthen the text in line with what EU citizens, workers and communities affected by corporate abuses worldwide have vocally and publicly demanded. The joint statement outlines our collective views on how to improve the proposal to guarantee that the law will effectively prevent corporate harm to human rights, the environment and climate; as well as provide victims of corporate abuse with access to effective remedies.
April 21, 2022
Cheap Tricks: How Levi's and IKEA are freeriding on their competitors' progress on workplace safety in Bangladesh
Nine years since the Rana Plaza collapse, not all brands have heeded its wake up call and joined the safety mechanism that was created in its wake. Brands which are vocal about their sustainability credentials like IKEA and Levi's have refused to sign the International Accord, yet they source from factories that are made safe under the programme, thanks to the efforts of their competitors. This report by Clean Clothes Campaign and with research by Future in Our Hands (Norway) from April 2022 explores several examples of freeriding in the brands' supply chains.
April 1, 2022
82 civil society organizations ask the EU to address the persistent gender inequalities that prevent many women and girls affected by the activities of European business from leading a safe and prosperous life, the CSDDD must ensure that European companies are compelled to change their own practices and business models, cover the costs of compliance to prevent harms and face the judicial and administrative consequences of failing to do so.
March 30, 2022
Civil society response to the EU Strategy for Sustainable and Circular Textiles released on 30 March 2022: textile strategy contains green ambitions but forgets workers from the equation.
March 8, 2022
"We have the right to the protections of Nike’s labour code after losing our job without getting what we were owed. " Workers from the former Violet Apparel factory in Cambodia, owned by Singapore based Ramatex Group, call on Nike to ensure they receive the 343.174 USD they are owed in compensation in lieu of prior notice. In addition there are damages mounting up to 1.048.120 USD. Together with the workers, Clean Clothes Campaign calls on Nike, as Ramatex’ biggest buyer, saying Nike has the responsibility to make sure they are paid for their labour.
February 24, 2022
In this letter of 22 February 2022, unions and NGOs call upon the European Commission for an ambitious tangible vision to change the textile sector
January 25, 2022
Legislating Human Rights Due Diligence: Momentum to enact mandatory human rights due diligence (HRDD) legislation is building around the world. Such legislation is necessary to ensure corporations respect human rights and that victims of corporate abuse have access to justice and remedy. This paper identifies 12 key interpretations of the norms that legislators must get right when establishing HRDD obligations.
December 8, 2021
On Wednesday, 8 December, the European Coalition for Corporate Justice and 46 other civil society and trade union organisations sent an open letter to the European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen asking her to show that the EU is serious about addressing corporate abuse, following last week’s news that the sustainable corporate governance draft law has been delayed to 2022.