The big apparel brands still bump up against the fair wages issue

Cambodia garment workers are angry. And, if the picture from recent audits is anything to go by, they have every reason to be. Real wages have dropped by 14% since 2000, leaving workers to suffer malnutrition, slum living conditions and mounting debts.

It’s not just low wages, either. A host of basic workers’ rights are not being met. Of the 300 factories monitored by Better Factories Cambodia (BFC), a programme backed by the International Labour Organisation, a dismal one in 20 are compliant with overtime rules. Only 38% meet acceptable temperature conditions – heat being a major contributing factor to more than 1,500 reported cases of fainting in 2011.  

Unlike many Asian countries, Cambodia’s garment factories are highly unionised. And the unions are not afraid of using their muscle. Strikes resulted in 81,584 lost workdays in 2011, according to the Garment Manufacturers Association in Cambodia.

The most recent manifestation of worker-led disgruntlement took the form of a two-day self-proclaimed People’s Tribunal in late January. More than 300 garment workers gathered to call for fair wages and decent working conditions. Participants accused international brands of “CSR speak” and “not enough real action”.

The first point to note is that factory workers are targeting international buyers and not their immediate bosses, the factory owners. It’s a power thing, says Jill Tucker, chief technical adviser for BFC. “Buyers are the only lever we have right now,” she says.

So are big brands doing enough to force improvements among suppliers? Sort of. Take Puma, one of only two (along with Adidas) to attend the People’s Tribunal. The company speaks of its willingness to “engage on the issues” and its interest in “creating a positive change”.

Wage action

In concrete terms, this translates to traditional monitoring activities and supplier training programmes. Specifically on wages, the German sports retailer says it is “exploring and promoting” mechanisms that allow suppliers to pay more. Its involvement in the Fair Labour Association’s Fair Wage Assessment (an independent evaluation of wage structures) is one such example.

The key issue on pay is whether the minimum wage (which most factories pay) constitutes a living wage. That question still requires “a lot more dialogue and study”, Tucker says.

There’s a bigger issue here, however. Yes, brands are powerful; but they are not all-powerful. Ultimately, the realisation of living wages in Cambodia remains “a state duty under international human rights law”, according to a statement from Adidas. The role of the state is most prominent in the 40% of Cambodian factories where buyers (many of them Asian-owned) are “intransigent”, as Tucker puts it.

Despite recent improvements, BFC says, foreign brands can still up their game considerably – in Cambodia and elsewhere. Two critical areas are transparency and dialogue. These are happening, but arguably not enough. Another need is a move away from the top-down approach of social auditing towards a more collaborative model of engaging with factory owners.

In the case of a living wage, a consistent policy commitment is required. Levels will change from country to country, but the principle of paying a fair day’s wage for a fair day’s work should be universal. The crunch is whether buyers – and their consumers – are willing to pay extra to see that happen.

 



Related Reads

comments powered by Disqus