Pentland revisited

Some of you may remember that after my favourable write up of the Pentland Group‘s comprehensive corporate social responsibility policies, I came across a negative comment about them in one of the issues that the Clean Clothes Campaign is dealing with, and so we wrote to them in order to understand their involvement and actions better.

Shortly afterwards we did get a brief reply back at ResponsAble, which I felt it was only fair to report back on here.

The issue, similar unfortunately to countless others in the clothing industry, was regarding a factory in Hermosa, El Salvador, which had been shut down in May 2005 because the workers had (quite legally) begun to organise themselves into a union in order to try to deal with some of the appalling pay and working conditions they were experiencing. Some of the workers have subsequently been campaigning for their owed severance payments and outstanding wages, and to be removed from local blacklists which prevent them from finding other work.

CCC asked the brands sourcing from this factory (Adidas, Nike, Walmart, Puma, Russel Athletic and Pentland) to contribute to a fund to cover this legally owed money (amounting to $825 000USD in total), to require their other suppliers in the area to hire these workers, and to pressure the Salvadorian government to fulfil the law regarding moneys owed, the right to organise, and access to medical care. The brands did then contribute to this situation by providing a fund of $36 000USD in aid to these workers. CCC’s response is that whilst this is considerably better than nothing at all, it does not go far enough and is continuing to pressure the brands to recitify the situation.

In this light of this and the clear CSR policy laid down by Pentland, I wrote to clarify their particular involvement and this is the reply I received:

This was a factory used by a licencee factory and therefore not a direct supplier and not part of our programme. However we did recognise responsibility and our licencee was one of the first companies to contribute to the fund. We were a minor customer.

The difficulty with this particular case is that the non-payment of the social contributions to the government would not easily come out of the normal social auditing process. I would surmise that this is probably not an exception factory in El Salvador and we have not been able to influence the local debate to further a sustainable solution to this problem. The responsibility ultimately lies with the Government and the employers.

Unfortunately we have no other suppliers in El Salavador and therefore our methodology cannot be applied. We have no on-going capactiy building programmes nor links to local organisations.

In short they claim that they did respond quickly to the appeal, despite the factory in question not being a direct supplier of theirs, and that further, their normal CSR processes mean that they are usually involved in communities at many different levels including local government and other groups, and several places of work within a community, but that this was not the case in El Salvador as they had no links there other than with this indirect supplier. I also understand from this response that there was a problem regarding the payment of social contributions to the government, thereby presumably making it difficult for the government to respond to the problem. I would surmise here as in many other cases, the root of the problem lies with the factory owners and that both government and brands should be diligent in cracking down on them. Pentland on the other hand have hopefully learnt to try and keep their sourcing in communities where they can influence the work ethic for the better.

Personally though I do think their response is fair and not in contradiction with what they have laid down and claimed, and remain impressed by their commitment to trade well in what is currently a very difficult climate to do so.

International Cocoa Initiative – chocolate watchdog?

We had an interesting question from Kimi yesterday, which I felt would be good to explore as a post in its own right, especially given the amount of traffic ResponsAble is getting specifically interested in the chocolate issue:

I would love to hear your opinions on the International Cocoa Initiative (ICI). The chocolate industries have been criticized for their delayed work in the fight against child labor…. Further, they continue their trade practices (”unfair” trade) as usual. Yet, they have pledged to end child labor…. What are their motives? Are they sincere?

I am very confused…

The International Cocoa Initiative (ICI) is the body that was set up to respond to the Harkin/Engel Protocol, which promised to end the Worst Forms of Child Labour (ILO Convention 182) ‘ to include all forms of slavery or practices similar to slavery (the sale and trafficking of children, debt bondage and serfdom, forced or compulsory labour including recruitment for use in armed conflict); the use or offering of a child for prostitution and/or pornography, illicit activities including the production and trafficking of drugs; as well as work which when performed is likely to harm the health, safety or morals of the child.‘

Their website states:

‘Created in 2002 under Swiss law in Geneva, ICI is a product of active co-operation between the global chocolate industry, concerned politicians, members of the labour movement and key civil society actors engaged in the fight against child labour. The foundation was staffed in the summer of 2003, and set about the research necessary to carry out its mandate.

Our mission is : “to oversee and sustain efforts to eliminate the worst forms of child labour and forced labour in the growing and processing of cocoa beans and their derivative products” ‘

They have worked mainly in Ghana, building awareness of what trafficking and WFCL is amongst the cocoa growing communities, helping a small proportion of children from cocoa growing families into schools and teaching farmers how to get more productivity from their crops. It sounds commendable until you consider that their remit was to end child exploitation on cocoa farms by 2005. They have singularly failed to do so.

A new report on the Ghana COCOBOD website shows that dangerous forms of child labour are still widespread even in that country, which is relatively advanced in this area by comparison to some of its neighbours. Although that report claims that trafficking is not major problem in Ghana, it does admit that there are significant numbers of children who are working on cocoa farms in debt bondage and far from their families – by UN definitions this is trafficking.

In Ivory Coast (where Stop the Traffik’s chocolate campaign is focused), almost nothing seems to have been achieved, which given that this is the country which produces more than 40% of the world’s cocoa, is not really a good record to date.

The problem is that although the ICI approach sounds good, it does not seem able to effect long term change. The main issue is that it assumes that the responsibility lies with the farming community, whereas, in fact, all the power is with the chocolate industry: the cocoa exporters and with the chocolate companies. In Ivory Coast alone there are 600,000 small cocoa farms and only 10 main exporters. Despite the fact that the Ivorian govenrments tax & investment policies are at best unhelpful, the real power remains with the cocoa exporters.

So, are the ICI sincere? A cynic would see business responding to consumer pressure in a way that appears commendable but moves the onus as far from them (and towards the farmers) as reasonably possible. Or maybe that is unfair and they are simply taking longer to ramp up than they at first envisaged. I feel we need to let them know we are watching and are expecting them to take responsibility.