Quote
|
This report isn't an 'ethical shopping guide'. The way to help workers is not to boycott one company in favour of another, it's to shift from being a passive consumer to an active one. Each time you buy clothes, get in touch with the company you bought them from, ask them what they are doing about the recommendations in this report. Together, we can - and we will - clean up fashion. |
| Tesco | | Print | |
Page 2 of 3 Detail on workers rights WagesAs in 2006, Tesco’s response concentrated on Bangladesh. We continue to work with local unions, NGOs and consultants to achieve agreement on the methodology for defining the appropriate living wage by country, industry and region, in countries where there is dissent over whether the National Minimum Wage is a living wage. For example, we participate on the MFB (Local Multistakeholder Forum Bangladesh) which helped to raise the national minimum wage (NMW) for the garment industry in Bangladesh in November 2006. The NMW was raised to Tk 1665, widely denounced by trade unions and NGOs as half the value needed. Tesco continued that it had reviewed wages across all its sites in Bangladesh and on average they were 32% above the NMW: this would mean Tk 2200. Tesco’s survey is at odds with statements by workers interviewed since the minimum wage increase, for ActionAid’s ‘Who Pays?’ report and a Guardian feature in July 2007: in these cases, workers cited wages of Tk 1350 and Tk 1200 respectively. In any event, 2200 is considerably below Tesco’s own living wage estimate, given last year, of Tk3000. It continued, “we will continue to work with the MFB to ensure that wage increases continue to be sustainable and work towards delivering a living wage,” although it didn’t give any more detail. It also said that, “[a]s part of the MFB we have begun a review of our purchasing practices and the effects on achieving potential improvements in labour standards in Bangladesh with the help of our local buyers and commercial directors.” Tesco also said that in China it was, “in year 2 of delivering training programmes to help our suppliers improve efficiency without impacting on wages.” In several other countries it continued to “work with suppliers” in an unspecified way. Freedom of AssociationLast year, we criticised Tesco for its emphasis on producing training materials rather than collaborating with local NGOs and trade unions to put in place face-to-face training. We said there was, “nothing in Tesco’s response to indicate that it sees trade unions as positive partners, or freedom of association as more than an obligation.” This year, its written submission listed collaboration with trade unions in a range of countries and sectors. In garments, it stated that, “[w]e continue to work with Unions that want to engage with the MFB in Bangladesh.” It didn’t offer more detail. It continued, We will continue to seek and work with relevant trade unions and recognised organisations to facilitate understanding and improvement on any issues relating to freedom of association and collective bargaining within our supply chain where we find them. Monitoring and verificationTesco gave quite a bit of information about its audit programme, including stating that some audits are unannounced, all involve worker interviews, and all are gender-sensitive. It stopped short of telling us how frequent they are. Last year it had told us that suppliers it identifies as “high risk...have a two-three day ethical assessment by a third party company every year.” Medium-risk suppliers were audited every two years, while for low-risk suppliers, Tesco relied on self-assessment. Last year, Tesco indicated that its auditors involved local labour groups in the pre audit data and information gathering process. We stated that we were not sure how much influence they would actually have if this were the case. This year, Tesco added that, We also accept audits conducted by local NGO auditors, where their capability and experience is recognised by independent organisations such as the ETI. Examples include HEBI and Africa Now in Kenya. Through the ETI, we have also extended a standing invitation to Trade Unions and NGOs (many of whom are members of ETI) to participate on our independent audits. Our conclusionTesco earns some credit for citing a concrete estimate of wages in Bangladesh, and a target. Given the repeated evidence of low wages uncovered this year, we are disappointed that 12 months since we last asked, it does not seem to have progressed much further towards implementing it. It also seems to be have focused its efforts on Bangladesh: yet there is “dissent over whether the National Minimum Wage is a living wage” in every single garment producing country, so we would like to see this work deepened and broadened. On freedom of association, Tesco’s statement of intent is welcome, but in garments it appears unable to offer concrete examples. Similarly with its monitoring and verification, its unclear how systematic Tesco’s monitoring and verification is. Given the number of abuses that seem to have slipped through the net this year only to become public, it cannot be all that effective. To ‘accept’ audits from local NGOs and make a ‘standing invitation’ to UK organisations is one thing, but the next step would be pro-actively to solicit the involvement of in-country trade unions and NGOs. |
|||||
| Last Updated ( Sunday, 16 September 2007 ) | |||||
Supporters
