10.10.1 International campaigns against garment manufacturers

To put the CCC/ICN s campaign against G-Star into perspective, some other international campaigns against garment manufacturers will be compared to the FFI/JKPL case. It is interesting to note that although their outcomes differ, there are also some striking similarities. Conspicuous campaigns were those against the underwear brand Triumph International (Triumph), in which CCC/ICN played a leading role, and against the American sportswear company Gildan Inc. (Gildan), in which CCC/ICN only played an indirect role. In addition, American campaigns against Fruit of the Loom to source college wear from a Honduras factory will be mentioned. Lastly, other CCC/ICN campaigns against Dutch retailers will be examined, revealing as a hidden conflict a clash of CSR codes. A summary of the first three cases is presented below, followed by some brief remarks.

In June 2000, the ILO Conference adopted a Resolution in which Burma was called upon to take action against the widespread and systemic use of forced labour.1 In December 2000, an NGO coalition, consisting of CCC/ICN, cooperating with its Swiss branch, Burma Centre Netherlands, the Burma Campaign UK, the Dutch trade union FNV Global, and OxfamNovib contacted the Swiss-based company Triumph International (Triumph) about Triumph's Burmese branch. They wanted Triumph to leave Burma, because Triumph's production facilities were located in government-owned property, therefore contributing financially to the military regime. When Triumph did not respond to the NGOs call, the NGOs started a public campaign to force Triumph to leave Burma ('support breasts - not dictators ). After one year, Triumph gave in and left Burma. Later on, Triumph revised its code of conduct so as to include ILO and human rights standards.2

In 2001, a Canadian and a Honduran NGO investigated the labour conditions at the production units in Central and South America of Canadian sports apparel brand Gildan Inc. (Gildan).3 When the findings of the two NGOs - mainly concerning denial of freedom of association - were made public in a documentary shown on nationwide Canadian television, a controversy was born that was to last for five years. Although denying the claims made by the NGOs, Gildan adopted the Worldwide Responsible Production and Certification Programme (WRAP) in 2002.4 The NGOs were not satisfied with this attempt to address labour rights violations, and continued their campaigning, even involving Gildan s shareholders. In October 2003, Gildan obtained a Fair Labor Association (FLA) accreditation for implementing and verifying fair labour conditions,5 followed by an environmental certification in early 2004

by the Austrian Textile Research Institute (OTI).6 Shortly after obtaining FLA accreditation, the NGOs filed a complaint with the FLA. Gildan was given 45 days to investigate and resolve the issues put forward by the NGOs. A few months later, the FLA - after a joint investigation with the labour monitoring organisation, the Workers Rights Consortium (WRC)7 - confirmed that the right of freedom of association was being violated at a particular Honduran production facility. After implementing a corrective action plan, which gained the consent of the NGOs, Gildan decided to leave this factory for another Honduran production site in 2005, where they urged the application of a first-hire preference to workers from the former site.

In a report released on 7 November, 2008, WRC announced the closure of Russell Corporation s Honduran textile factory. Russell is a subsidiary company of Fruit of the Loom.8 A WRC inquiry found substantial credible evidence that animosity against workers exercising their associational rights was a significant factor in Russell's decision to close this 'Jerzees de Honduras' plant. The closure announcement came after a year-long process during which WRC had worked with Russell to remediate particularly severe violations of associational rights at the Jerzees de Honduras plant and a sister facility known as Jerzees Choloma. According to the WRC, during mid-2007, Russell unlawfully dismissed nearly 150 workers from these facilities in retaliation for the workers decision to form a union. As a result of a WRC investigation (corroborated by an FLA-commissioned report), and the intervention ofaffiliate universities, Russell was forced to acknowledge the violations, to offer reinstatement to the illegally dismissed workers, and to pay roughly USD

150,000 in back pay. WRC stated that

Many universities sourced their college wear from Russell, but terminated the relationship when the reports on Russell Corporation's practice came out.10

Comparing these three cases, differences and similarities can be observed. Similar to G-Star, Triumph was not prepared for the severe actions by civil society organisations. Differently from G-Star, Triumph gave in to the call of the NGO coalition. The question remains though whether the divestment of Triumph has improved the labour conditions of 850 employees, also noting that the military regime has not lost any of its strength. In the second case, Gildan gave in to the demands of the NGOs: it became an FLA member, and involved them in a dialogue on labour practices. In contrast, as described supra, G-Star did not become an FWF member but instead decided to rely on the SA 8000 audit and certification system. Furthermore, the Gildan case resembled the case study at hand in terms of (i) the set-up of the NGOs, one in the home country (Canada-the Netherlands), and one in the country of production (Honduras-India); (ii) the campaigns were supported by an international network of other NGOs; (iii) the complaints were filed at multiple levels; (iv) the 'responsible exit strategy' demand in respect of first-hire preference; and (v) the campaign was characterised by continued efforts to collect information, frequent press releases, media events and requests to consumers to send letters to the management of the Western customers. The Fruit of the Loom case shows that despite ILO and other standards, freedom of association and collective bargaining are still a challenge in some places. To find credible evidence of violations will help employees and civil society organisations to enforce such rights.