The well-intentioned efforts of fashion brands and
retailers to put in place grievance mechanisms in their supply chains are
missing the mark. Companies should consider sector wide approaches, writes
corporate responsibility consultant, Doug Cahn.
When John
Ruggie, special representative to the UN secretary general for business and
human rights, conceptualised the foundational principles for effective
grievance mechanisms throughout the supply chain he understood the central role
that fashion brands and retailers would play. He called on companies to ensure
access to those mechanisms be a part of a company’s commitment to respect
rights. When it came to operational-level grievance mechanisms in particular,
he understood that a company’s obligations could be administered not only by
each company acting alone, but by companies in collaboration with others. This
is relevant for global brands today as regulators in Europe and elsewhere
require transparent communications that document the impact of brands’
initiatives to protect workers in their supply chains, including their
grievance channels.
Leading fashion brands and
retailers have invested significant time and money into developing and
implementing global grievance mechanisms in their own supply chains. These
efforts are well known and include reporting channels accessed through links to
web forms, mobile apps, toll free numbers staffed by local compliance
professionals or call centres. Information when provided by workers is managed
in a variety of ways, each according to the customised protocols typically
developed by the brand or retailer.
Evidence of these efforts can
be easily found by glancing at a factory’s notice board where multiple customer
hotlines can be found posted side-by-side, often creating a bewildering and
confusing array of numbers to call or text in order to file complaints. Most
are placed within sight of a watchful management who are suspicious of the role
of third party complaint channels and who passively or sometimes actively
discourage their use. Workers rarely understand what to expect if they file a
complaint and even more rarely trust management claims to refrain from
retaliatory behaviour.
To consider a better design of
grievance mechanisms, we must first recognise two important truths:
1.
The unskilled
and semi-skilled labourers that constitute the vast majority of the workforce
in fashion supply chains are transient and their skill sets are fungible. They
may work in one factory today and another factory next month or next year. This
is the nature of a workforce that has recently entered the formal sector, is
building skills, and is looking to better themselves and their families through
higher skilled jobs and increased earnings. A worker who learns about a
grievance channel in one factory may not be permitted access to it when they
move to a different factory. This lack of continuity leads to a lack of
awareness and trust.
2.
Factories and
the subcontractors they use are rarely exclusive to one brand or retailer
customer. As such, brand and retail-centric initiatives can appear to workers
to be duplicative, confusing, or simply irrelevant.
Brands and retailers
considering approaches to meet Germany’s new
Corporate Due Diligence Obligations for the Prevention of Human
Rights Violations in Supply Chains Act, for example, should keep in mind that
investments in grievance mechanisms that are focused solely on a particular
company’s supply chain may well meet their immediate reporting obligations.
However, effectiveness over
time is not likely to be achieved unless grievance mechanisms are designed to
reflect the transient nature of the workforce. In the complex web of commercial
relationships between brands, retailers, suppliers, factories and
subcontractors, workers do not fall neatly into brand-by-brand silos.
Collective actions are needed and they are possible.
The Amader Kotha Helpline in
Bangladesh serves as an example, supporting a significant portion of that
country’s Ready-Made Garment (RMG) sector since 2014. As a partnership between
Clear Voice, a project of The Cahn Group, ELEVATE, and Phulki, a non-profit
organisation based in Dhaka, the Helpline has been able to provide in-factory
training to over a million workers and currently provides a grievance reporting
channel to over 400 factories. In so doing, the Helpline has become a one-stop
shopping solution for workers who need to report and resolve a concern.
The benefits of this critical
mass approach are many including:
·
Reduction of
confusion on the part of factory management and workers that comes with
elimination of multiple brand and retailer grievance channels
·
Widespread
awareness of and access to the Helpline: workers will know or have heard about
a friend or family members who have used the grievance channel
·
Facilitating the
ability of brand and retailers to collaborate on remediation when that is
needed, consistent with anti-trust requirements.
Brands and retailers need not
worry that collective or consolidated grievance mechanisms will make it difficult
for them to exercise their responsibilities or deny them what they need to meet
regulatory requirements. On the contrary, collective efforts will increase
effectiveness and efficiency at the same time. Through agreed-upon escalation
protocols, brands and retailers can learn of small problems before they become
more serious or larger problems that require their timely attention.
Sector-wide initiatives take
time to establish since they involve multiple parties aligned to a single set
of operational protocols. Still, collaborative approaches that recognise and
reflect the needs of a sector-wide labour force, and not the immediate fashion
supply chain specific workforce, will be worth the effort.
By Just Style