TRADE-LABOUR: Canadians Contemplate Ethical Consumption

By Paul Weinberg Reprint | | Print |

Paul Weinberg

TORONTO, Jul 21 2001 (IPS) - Canadian companies, long spared the consumer activism seen in other parts of the world, pay scant attention to the rights of workers in their suppliers’ factories, particularly those in developing countries.

By contrast, US companies like Nike and Liz Claiborne, with their high brand recognition, have been easy targets for anti-sweatshop campaigns, says Bob Jeffcott, a policy analyst with the Toronto- based Ethical Trading Action Group (ETAG), a nationwide coalition of church, labour and non-governmental organisations (NGOs).

Public pressure, Jeffcott notes, forced both US companies to open their suppliers’ plants in Central America to independent inspection of working conditions.

Now, it seems, the time has come for at least one major Canadian brand, Mountain Equipment Co-op (MEC).

MEC is a Vancouver-based, non-profit cooperative with some 1.5 million members nationwide and a self-described social conscience. Members – or customers – elect the company’s board of directors. Stores throughout the country generate annual sales of about 100 million dollars. Much of the profit is ploughed back into the business to keep prices low or is committed to wilderness preservation and other environmental projects.

The company has a code of conduct governing its dealings with suppliers and prides itself for selling equipment for use in outdoor pursuits it says have little impact on the environment and, in the words of a spokesperson, require the use of one’s “muscle, brain and spirit working in harmony.” These include mountain climbing, canoeing and hiking.

However, says Jeffcott, the code of conduct makes no mention of child labour, hours of work, freedom of association and the right to bargain collectively. Nor does it say anything about employers’ obligation to pay workers wages sufficient to meet basic needs. As a result, ETAG has targeted the 30-year-old company for reform.

Of particular concern to ETAG are the firm’s suppliers in China, where the prohibition against unions not officially sanctioned makes free collective bargaining impossible, Jeffcott says.

“The Chinese happen to be the most skilled sewers in the world,” says Pat Stratton, MEC’s vice president of merchandising. “The cleanest, best and most modern factories we deal with are in China.” And so the company relies heavily on Chinese manufacturers for its tents, sleeping bags and garments, despite a stated preference for Canadian suppliers.

MEC president Peter Robinson says the company will strengthen the labour portion of its code of conduct. He promises to introduce, next year, some form of third-party verification of working conditions in MEC suppliers’ factories in Asia. For this to be credible, he and Jeffcott agree, the monitoring should not be done by any of the major accounting firms – which excel at financial audits and management but lack expertise and experience in labour issues.

But it will be more difficult for MEC to fulfil an ETAG demand for openness.

The activist coalition insists that MEC and other Canadian retailers reveal and names and locations of all their suppliers, and make public all third-party monitoring reports on working conditions in the suppliers’ factories.

Without such disclosure, Jeffcott says, Canadian consumers won’t be able to make fully informed buying decisions, including choosing between different brand names.

Robinson, however, says building relationships with Asian suppliers is a “delicate” affair and he does not want to unsettle those relationships with unexpected disclosures. “When we go to evaluate the factories, we will ask (the suppliers) if they would have any issues with us in terms of printing or disclosing the name of their factory.”

Diane Brisbois, president of the business group Retail Council of Canada, adds that, in her organisation’s view, the best way for a company to force a supplier to alter its labour practices is to threaten to take its business elsewhere.

The Retail Council also has argued that Canadian companies would lose their competitive edge if their suppliers’ factories were identified.

Jeffcott dismisses this argument as a red herring. On the contrary, he says, corporations from all over the industrialised world end up relying on the same factories in developing countries for specific types of products and materials.

He also urges Canadian companies borrow from others’ experience of involvement in efforts to improve workers’ welfare, and not simply monitor suppliers at a safe distance from public scrutiny.

By way of example of what Canadian companies might do, Jeffcott points to an initiative by Hong Kong-based NGOs, Taiwanese investors, and companies such as Adidas, Nike, and Reebok. At specific factories, they have collaborated to establish health and safety training programmes and a mechanism for addressing worker complaints.