Bottom up: how workers see it

"I have been working [here] for more than a year. Auditors visit the factory but there is no visible change in our working conditions [...] I have been having a constant leg pain since I joined. I have complained to the supervisors but have not got time off to see the doctor."

 

 

These two testimonies from workers in north India typify the results of a wide-ranging investigation of worker perspectives on auditing conducted last year by the Clean Clothes Campaign . Some 670 workers from 40 factories in 8 countries were interviewed about their experiences with auditors.  The results were conclusive:

The social audit methods used by [some retailers] are based on a seriously flawed model largely discredited not only by labour rights advocates but also by those within the industry who have had a longer-term involvement in this field but on an extended scale. The impact of these programmes on working conditions is at best superficial.

Their approach seems for the most part to be minimalist - they tend to invest as little time and money as possible, and more worryingly, they seem to be promoting a "lowering of the bar", in order to make it easier to tell consumers that they are meeting goals for treating workers responsibly.

Interviews with workers and those who work closely with them showed many technical flaws with the audits.  The problem is the cat and mouse game played between supplier management and auditors: it suits both the brand and its supplier for an audit not to turn up any serious issues. 

 

Suppliers may keep two sets of records of wages and hours worked - one which shows the real information, and one to show the auditors.  The factory is tidied up and prepared in advance so that it meets health and safety criteria.  Workers who should not be there, for example because they are under age, are given the day off.  Homeworkers are often totally passed over in the audit: out of sight, out of mind.

Better audits will place a strong emphasis on worker interviews, which will be conducted by someone who has the workers' trust (a local person of the same gender, with experience of interviewing).  Ideally, they are conducted off-site.  All this will help, but in itself it is often not enough to get past the coaching and intimidation of workers to ensure that they say the right thing.  One factory manager in north India admitted,

"[Supervisor's name] is present at the time of the interview so we get to know who was interviewed and what was asked. We hold meetings with the workers, train them, before the audit. We tell them what may be asked and what should be answered."

 

Workers' testimonies reveal that, even when audits are conducted well, and though they may pick up on some problems like basic health and safety, as a Chinese researcher stated,

 

It appears to workers and campaigners that most companies are more interested in ticking the right boxes than they are in actually improving working conditions.  As we discussed in the previous chapters, there are commercial reasons why it is in their interests to maintain low wages and the absence of trade unions.

 

We have tried to see through companies' responses to our questions, and to assess what action they are actually taking.  In the final analysis, as the CCC research concluded,