10.11 Concluding remarks

The sequence of events in this case clearly demonstrates that the commencing of lawsuits to resolve a CSR dispute resulted in FFI/JKPL falling into a bottomless abyss. Its reputation had already been severely damaged. The fact that the employees were not unionised also raised questions. It has been argued that FFI/JKPL's attempt to litigate appeared to be a so-called 'Strategic Law Suit against Public Participation' - corporate endeavours by economic interests to stifle dissent towards projects by using court procedures1 - but given the facts of the case this does not seem likely here. The court cases provided the campaigning organisations with new ammunition to gain the sympathy of many consumers, other civil society organisations and politicians. Moreover, it made both sides dig their heels in deeper and deeper. Dialogue became impossible. However, it was also quite understandable that FFI/JKPL wanted the Indian Organisations to substantiate their accusations, as FFI/JKPL suspected the information to be false and only to have been circulated because of other motives (e.g. attracting new union members or suggested by competitors). Yet, it would have been better if FFI/JKPL were to have started mediation behind closed doors to solve these issues rather than by litigation. Mediation tends to lead to a more cooperative attitude between the parties and often to a long-term solution;

Generally, studies show that civil society organisations are publicly perceived as more reliable than politicians and businesses. This perception is based upon the assumption that these organisations are often uniquely well placed to furnish vital grass-roots early warning facilities such as where particular governmental or business measures may inadvertently result in a disturbance or impact in some other unintended negative way to local communities. Nonetheless, 'facts' publicly presented should truly be facts. Allegations based on anonymous hearsay evidence do not suffice to build a media campaign, nor can they constitute a basis for a constructive stakeholder dialogue. In the case at hand, it remained unclear whether the anonymous witness statements were truthful or imaginary. The Dutch and Indian Organisations provided nebulous responses when requested to substantiate their accusations, they could not provide any specific instances, nor were any complaints filed with the local police. Concrete facts need be presented in order to develop a fruitful dialogue. Only then will a company's management board be able to address any misconduct on the factory floor. In this case study the strategy of CCC/ICN was questionable: (new) facts presented by FFI/JKPL, the Indian Labour Inspection Department, and by the independent audit firm SGS and ASK, its NGO partner, were sidetracked as being 'unreliable'. When civil society organisations work on the basis of unfounded charges, they undermine their own reliability and thereby the position of NGOs in general. Even more so, if NGOs support the messages of other civil society organisations as happened in this case; i.e. many Dutch and other organisations (MVO Platform, Amnesty, FNV, etc.) publicly expressed their support for the CCC/ICN campaign, without having checked the research carried out by the Indian Organisations. Just as it cannot be tolerated that a government or a company can exclaim statements unsupported by facts or scientific findings, each civil society organisation also has a responsibility in this regard. Still, the CCC/ICN communications snowballed around the world. The campaign resembled a perfect marketing plan rather than a sincere effort to engage in a constructive stakeholder dialogue aimed at improving workers' conditions. Ultimately, the FFI/JKPL employees almost lost their jobs, while actually working in an SA 8000 certified company! At the same time, many other textile workers in the Bangalore area work in far less favourable circumstances and probably would have appreciated more support from civil society organisations;

An understanding of local labour law systems is imperative for organisations fighting for better labour standards worldwide. The description in section 10.8 of the applicable legal and soft law standards exhibited a major cause of the misery in this case: the Indian Trade Unions Act and the related case law provide for a detailed system regarding trade union representation in collective bargaining. In this case, GATWU did not qualify as such. The accusation against FFI/JKPL that it did not respect employees' rights to collective bargaining was therefore unjustified. Moreover, the Indian legal system offers ample opportunity to execute one's legal rights if GATWU indeed were to have been recognised by FFI/JKPL. In addition to the fact that India is a state in which the rule of law applies, it is also the largest democracy in the world. Any changes desired by civil society with respect to Indian labour laws could probably be more effectively addressed through political channels than by forcing one company to deviate from local labour law standards. It would be different, though, when examining a CSR case related to e.g. factories in a state governed by a dictatorial regime that does not allow for individual political rights, such as the freedom of expression or freedom of association. In that case, it would be difficult for civil society to change the political setting. Salaries and workplace conditions can certainly be improved through good CSR practices, but the establishment of unions will be difficult. Inventive solutions such as establishing workers' committees can improve the situation.2 Furthermore, in failed states or weak governance zones, imposing CSR standards on local suppliers can indeed improve the local labour situation. It is recommendable to develop best practices - together with the local company and civil society,3 or simply to avoid countries, such as Myanmar, where companies and civil society are unable to make a difference through CSR given the political situation;

The harsh campaigns in the G-Star and Gildan cases have seemingly resulted in better CSR practices by the international textile suppliers and purchasers. In spite of this, it poses the question whether these results could not have been achieved in another way, for instance by engaging in a constructive stakeholder dialogue behind closed doors. No one party would then have been pushed into digging in its heels, partly out of loss of face considerations. Moreover, the local employees would have been spared a great deal of misery, such as losing their jobs because of cancelled orders. Hard-hitting campaigns specifically have a severe impact in the fashion industry, a sector that is vulnerable to varying designer trends and where brands can only survive with public support. Such campaigns are more suitable for targeting e.g. the oil industry, a sector with everlasting demand, fewer personnel, relatively easy money and large reserves of oil and assets. As a general observation it might be concluded that a public battle concerning CSR standards probably does not encourage companies' enthusiasm to improve their CSR behaviour. In the end, it is a company's management that determines its CSR strategy. Civil society may help companies to become acquainted with issues and solutions, but when it comes to opting for a specific CSR Implementation System, this really is a corporate decision. Campaigning organisations cannot claim a decisive vote therein. Their role as 'CSR aid' or a 'CSR watchdog' is essentially different from that of a company's management which has to balance ' planet people profit' concerns within a long-term perspective; and

CSR has been developed and is still developing based on three pillars: (1) companies try to take business decisions in consideration of social and environmental concerns, thereby also trying to promote compliance with CSR standards further on in the international supply chain; (2) civil society tries to alert companies concerning any negative impacts that their activities might have, and where possible to cooperate with them in developing 'best practices;' and (3) governments design legislation to support corporate accountability and the development of best practices. Governments support this development by e.g. introducing sustainability reporting regulations, building platforms to encourage multi-stakeholder dialogue, and subsidising civil society organisations. As this case study has demonstrated, maybe the time has come for governments to require civil society to practice what they preach: following socially responsible standards as set out in codes of conduct, creating transparency as to their activities, supporting their claims by factual or scientific evidence, and by being willing to be held accountable for their acts. It could be argued that when a local company goes bankrupt due to severe campaigning, the multi-stakeholder dialogue and thus the civil society efforts to improve the local labour conditions have invariably failed. Who can be held responsible for that undesired result? Especially when governments subsidise civil society organisations, they have reasons to impose an ' NGO code of conduct' reflecting the issues raised in this case study, particularly the mindfulness of other (legal) traditions, factual substantiations of public communications, the transparency of activities and financial expenditures, and the acceptance of responsibility for their deeds.