 |
Global Codes of Conduct—A Summary
[First printed in China Rights Forum, No.1 2003]
The past five years have brought a proliferation of corporate
responsibility codes of conduct and monitoring programs,
all aiming to impose some form of accountability on multinational
corporations toward the communities in which
they operate.
The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development (OECD) carried out a survey of 246 voluntary
codes of conduct and prepared a chart of the various elements
they encompassed. Labor-related content included the following in the table to the right:
| Labor Content of the Codes |
% of Codes Mentioning Attribute |
| Reasonable working environment |
75.7 |
| Compliance with laws |
65.5 |
| No discrimination or harassment |
60.8 |
| Compensation |
45.3 |
| No child labor |
43.2 |
| Obligations on contractors/suppliers |
41.2 |
| No forced labor |
38.5 |
| Provision of training |
32.4 |
| Working hours |
31.8 |
| Freedom of association |
29.7 |
| Specific mention of "human rights" |
25.0 |
| Monitoring |
24.3 |
| Right to information |
13.5 |
| ILO codes mentioned |
10.1 |
| Promotion |
8.8 |
| Reasonable advance notice |
3.4 |
| No excessive casual labor |
3.4 |
| Flexible workplace relations |
0.7 |
|
|
With no comprehensive assessment of the effectiveness
of these codes to date, critics have warned against placing
too much faith in a fragmented system that remains very
much in a developmental stage. Some of those caveats appear
in Voluntary Approaches to Corporate Responsibility: Readings and a Resource
Guide, published by the UN Non-Governmental Liaison
Service (NGLS) last year.
In one essay in the NGLS volume, Peter Utting warns,
"There is a danger that the considerable attention given to
corporate responsibility issues, [transnational corporations]
and their supply chains, is diverting attention from more pressing labour, environmental and community concerns related
to conditions outside of TNC supply chains, particularly in the
growing informal sectors of developing countries."
In the same book Rhys Jenkins notes several other
"dangers" associated with the growth of codes of conduct,
in particular, "that they may come to be seen as something
more than they really are. In some cases they can simply
be a means to deflect public criticism, without really
changing what is happening on the ground. In other words,
there is a distinct possibility of 'bad faith' in the development
of codes of conduct."
David Moberg in The Nation observed that a widely-accepted
code of conduct developed by the Fair Labor Association
(FLA) has been battered by NGO criticism that it is too weak
and too heavily influenced by corporate concerns, and that
its monitoring has been compromised. Moberg charged that
the FLA experience suggested "the dangers of well-meaning
groups, often unaccountable to a popular constituency,
negotiating on behalf of workers or citizens."
At the same time, essays published in this issue of China
Rights Forum suggest that codes of conduct have the potential to
bring genuine improvements to working conditions and the
environmental and sustainability issues attached to multinational
operations. Perhaps the crucial factor is sustained
vigilance by NGOs and other concerned parties outside of
the code and monitoring systems. In the words of Pharis
Harvey, a former director of the International Labor Rights
Fund who was criticized for his endorsement of the FLA
codes, "I want a good, healthy body of critics outside the association
saying,'You guys claim to be doing something. Show
me. It won't work without that body of informed critics."
The chart on the following pages provides a more detailed
analysis of some of the more well known corporate codes of
conduct. The chart was prepared by the Interfaith Center on
Corporate Responsibility (ICCR), a New York-based coalition
of 280 Protestant, Roman Catholic and Jewish institutional
investors including denominations, religious communities, pension
funds, dioceses, and health care corporations. In an effort to
hold corporations accountable on a wide range of social issues,
the ICCR sponsors shareholder resolutions, meets with corporate
management, screens their investments, publishes special reports,
and organizes letter-writing campaigns.
The ICCR has devised its own Global Principals in conjunction
with the Ecumenical Council for Corporate Responsibility of
the United Kingdom and the Taskforce on the Churches and
Corporate Responsibility in Canada.The ICCR Global Principals
call for a "sustainable" living wage,community development,
workers' right to organize, and environmental protection. Since
the spring of 1999, a global network of religious and non-governmental
organizations has been set up to utilize the Global
Principles in 21 countries.
Other codes of conduct summarized in the ICCR chart
include the following:
| American Apparel & Footwear Association (AAFA) |
The
AAFA, is a U.S.-based trade association whose members produce
more than 80 percent of apparel sold at wholesale in the
U.S. In 1998 it publicly endorsed the Worldwide Responsible
Apparel Production (WRAP) Principles and Certification
Program, which promotes basic standards for labor practices,
factory conditions, and environmental and customs compliance.
As of October 2002 the WRAP Certification Program had
registered over 1025 factories, and as of September 15, 2002, it
had issued approximately 280 compliance certifications
(www.americanapparel.org/). |
| The Caux Round Table (CRT) |
The Caux Round Table (CRT) was first organized in 1986
as a means of initiating candid dialogue between business peers
from Japan, Europe and the United States to defuse trade tensions.
Soon afterward CRT turned its attention to corporate
social responsibility, and in 1994 published its Principles for
Business as a worldwide standard for ethical and responsible
corporate behavior. CRT organizes regular international dialogues
involving around 30 participants, described as senior
business leaders and companies committed to be a force for
positive change. The CRT Web site lists 179 individual members
(www.cauxroundtable.org). |
| Fair Labor Association (FLA) |
Fair Labor Association (FLA) was established in the U.S. in
1998 as a successor body to the White House Apparel Industry
Partnership. It promotes brand certification for garments and
sports shoes marketed by trans-national corporations. in compliance
with the FLA Workplace Code of Conduct. By
September 2002, 13 corporations, with more than 3,000 factories
in 80 countries,were participating in the FLA scheme.
In addition 176 U.S. colleges and universities, involved with
1100 licensee companies, had affiliated themselves with the
FLA (www.fairlabor.org). |
| Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) |
Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) was established in 1997
as a project of the U.S.-based Coalition for Environmentally
Responsible Economies (CERES) and the United Nations
Environment Programme (UNEP). It became an independent
organization in 2002. GRI has developed and continues to
refine globally applicable guidelines for social and environmental
reporting and encourages companies to make in formation
on their social and environmental impacts available to the
public. By January 2003, GRI was aware of 191 companies that
had 'referred to or followed' its Sustainability Reporting
Guidelines (www.globalreporting.org). |
| The Global Sullivan Principles of Social Responsibility
(GSP) |
The Global Sullivan Principles of Social Responsibility
(GSP) were created by the Reverend Leon H. Sullivan in 1997.
They were based on principles that Sullivan developed in 1977
for companies operating in South Africa, and which are regarded
as having contributed to the dismantling of apartheid.The
GSP encourages businesses to work with their communities
toward the common goals of human rights, social justice and
economic opportunity.As of October 2002 GSP had a total of
290 endorsers, including 189 corporate, 91 civic (including
organizations such as Amnesty International) and 13 higher
education (www.globalsullivanprinciples.org). |
| Social Accountability 8000 (SA8000) |
Social Accountability 8000 (SA8000) was established in
1997 by the U.S.-based Council on Economic Priorities and
Accreditation Agency (CEPAA), now known as Social
Accountability International. Based on ILO and UN conventions,
SA8000 established a cross-industry standard for workplace
conditions and a verification and certification system. By
December 2002, 183 factories and facilities had obtained
SA8000 certification.Another ten major retailers had adopted
SA8000 as the code of conduct for their factories and contractors
(www.sa-intl.org). |
| U.S. Business Principles for Human Rights of Workers in
China |
Developed by Global Exchange, a non-profit research,
education, and action center founded in 1988. Following a
1999 report on labor abuses in factories producing clothing
for Disney, Global Exchange and other human rights organizations
launched a set of human rights principles for U.S. businesses
in China. So far Reebok, Levi Strauss and Mattel have
signed on to the principles and agreed to enlist other companies
and small groups. The principles are also endorsed by 21
human rights and labor organizations, including HRIC
(http://www.globalexchange.org/
economy/corporations/china/principles.html). |
| Workers Rights Consortium (WRC) |
Workers Rights Consortium (WRC) was established in
2000 by college and university administrations, students and
labor rights experts on the initiative of the United Students
Against Sweatshops (USAS). It aims to ensure acceptable labor
conditions in factories that produce clothing and other goods
under license for U.S. colleges and universities.The WRC carries
out investigations of factories and verifies compliance with the
WRC Code of Conduct. By January 2003, 111 U.S. colleges and
universities had affiliated themselves with the WRC, and investigative
reports had been prepared in relation to three factories
(www.workersrights.org). |
//
ENDNOTES
[1] Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Codes of
Conduct – An Expanded Review of their Contents, OECD Working Party of the Trade
Committee, TD/TC/WP(99)56/FINAL. OECD: Paris, 2001. Available
online at .
[2] Peter Utting, "Regulating Business via Multistakeholder Initiatives: A
Preliminary Assessment," in Voluntary Approaches to Corporate Responsibility: Readings and a Resource Guide, pp. 61-130, UN Non-Governmental Liaison Service,May 2002.
[3] Rhys Jenkins, "Corporate Codes of Conduct: Self-Regulation in a Global
Economy," in Voluntary Approaches, ibid, pp. 1-59.
[4] David Moberg, "Bringing Down Niketown," The Nation, June 11, 1999.
[5] Moberg, ibid.
//
|
|
![[Logo: IR2008]](img/utils/logo-tiny.gif){kind=logo}
