Angela Hale from Women Working Worldwide (WWW) in the UK describes their project on company codes of conduct. She argues for more worker involvement in developing and monitoring codes.

WWW has been centrally involved in the campaign for company codes of conduct. Codes are often being promoted by campaigners and adopted by companies without workers’ knowledge and involvement. If workers remain marginalised, then the value of these codes will be questionable. Education and awareness raising must take place in the South alongside the campaigning and advocacy work in Europe.

WWW organised a consultation and education programme on codes of conduct in Asia. This involved assessing how much both workers and activists knew about codes and their initial reactions. Not suprisingly, the workers had not heard about codes. This included those from companies which have codes. Once the idea was explained the workers demonstrated a high level of awareness of the potential and the limitations of introducing codes into their workplaces. For example, there was considerable scepticism about codes being properly implemented and monitored. There was enthusiasm though for more information, discussion, and the involvement of more workers. WWW then produced educational material on codes for discussion with groups of Asian workers.

Feedback from workers

For workers who had previously known little about codes, the educational material not only increased their understanding but also gave them greater confidence in their right to better conditions. Sahiba, a young worker, said: "I came to know how we should be treated by factory owners. I shall use this knowledge for our betterment".

Workers were particularly responsive to the idea of drawing up their own code. Many were inspired by the example of Nicaragua. "The case of the Nicaraguan Free Trade Zone workers who struggled for ratification of their own codes was extremely convincing for women workers. However they saw Nicaraguan women workers level of awareness and social set up as quite different. They had unity but we are scattered. They were conscious of their rights but we are quite unaware. At the moment in Pakistan we are not capable of this kind of movement, but it is an encouraging and practical example".

All groups found the session on subcontracting chains useful. In some cases, for example in Indonesia, workers "had never thought about it before and found it very difficult". In other cases, like Sri Lanka, workers and activists shared information and identified areas for further research. "We discovered a large number of gaps in our knowledge and the need for more research. One discovery was that some factories subcontract work to small sweatshops where workers are paid even less and get no social security benefits. This is significant because it is widely believed that there is no such subcontracting in Sri Lanka".

All groups were enthusiastic about using labels to trace global production chains. In Pakistan, participants indicated that "through labels workers got knowledge about which international companies are buying their goods. Garment workers who were working for Gap, Nike and Levi’s showed curiosity to know about the companies codes. After learning about them they were quite surprised because in reality the working conditions are totally opposite to the codes".

Time limitations prevented full discussion of different codes and how they should be implemented and monitored. The involvement of workers however was considered crucial. In India "they were very emphatic that they need to organise themselves to implement and monitor codes, whether company codes or their own".

Differing circumstances affected workers’ assessment of whether this could be done through trade unions. The Filipino group emphasised genuine trade unionism. "With a union workers will feel safe to testify against the company's violations....Independent monitoring bodies may be composed of NGOs that uphold workers interests and genuine trade union leaders. Workers emphasised though that NGO representatives and union leaders should be open to criticism to avoid corruption and to build up and maintain their credibility with workers".

Local and international solidarity was also seen as important. Participants learnt that workers world-wide were facing similar problems and were keen to share experiences. The need to develop links with consumer groups was also recognised. In Sri Lanka "the main problem they faced was victimisation by employers and the state if they attempted to organise and agitate for their demands. This could be overcome by building solidarity". In Sri Lanka and Bangladesh, it was seen as crucial to build solidarity in the local community. By publicising codes of conduct, a climate could be built which made violations difficult.

Key questions

After reports of the educational sessions, a number of key issues were identified for discussion:

1. Is it important for workers to talk about codes?

Companies have started introducing codes but workers have little idea of what is going on. It is important for them to be informed, and to decide how codes fit into a wider perspective of workers’ organisation and struggle.

2. What can codes do for workers? What is the relationship between codes and collective bargaining?

Codes could be seen as a substitute for collective bargaining. We felt that if codes include the right to form unions and bargain collectively and if it is understood that they are not the solution to workers problems, then this is not a danger. In countries with repression, workers could use codes as a way of getting their rights, particularly the right to organise. If workers can be dismissed if they try to organise, then it is equally important to have a proper legal employment relationship.

3. What is the relationship between codes and national legislation?

Company codes are not a substitute for stronger labour laws and the better implementation of existing legislation. Codes cover those workers producing for export, whereas legislation also covers those producing for the domestic market. Moreover codes could have a negative impact on child workers or homeworkers and other informal sector workers who might lose jobs if production is more formalised. Legislation can protect these sectors. However legislation is purely national in scope. If labour legislation in one country is too strong, companies can shift location. Codes however are applicable in all countries. A company code could be a useful supplement to good national legislation provided it:

• is universally applicable rather than differing from company to company
• includes union rights
• is properly monitored by an independent agency.

The future

All six groups decided to continue with educational work on codes. In Pakistan, Bangladesh and Indonesia regional workshops will involve other NGOs and trade unions. In Sri Lanka the materials have been adapted for use with tea plantation workers. In several countries there are plans to inform the wider community about codes and to build support for workers’ demands.

One of the most rewarding aspects of this project was that for workers, the educational exercises were valuable regardless of the overall significance of codes of conduct. Work on codes prompted an examination of where different workers are placed in the international production chain. Awareness of this is essential. Furthermore the realisation that people elsewhere have campaigned for company codes gave workers a tremendous boost and helped them realise that their claim to rights has international backing. To remind workers of this and reinforce the educational materials, a Workers’ Handbook is being produced which deals with codes and workers’ rights in a broader context. There are also plans to develop the theme of "Organising Along Subcontracting Chains", where codes of conduct will be seen as one potential tool for collaborative action in the context of globalised production.