ALMOST EVERYTHING YOU ALWAYS WANTED TO KNOW ABOUT INDEPENDENT MONITORING

The Clean Clothes Campaign has been demanding for years now that companies sign the Fair Trade Charter. Other campaigns in other countries and the trade union movement make similar demands, whether it is in the garment or in other sectors. The idea that companies have to take responsibility for the working conditions both in their own company and in that of their subcontractors, seems to be winning ground. A question often raised is the feasibility of such a Code of Conduct approach. Isn't it awfully complex to check if companies really abide by their claims? Don't we run the enormous risk that we won't be able to check properly and therefore the codes will simply be a public relations tool for companies? Therefore in the last few years the term 'independent monitoring' has come up, as a term for all sorts of checking on companies if they implement what they claim they do. There is a debate going on about what is the best system of independent monitoring and who should be involved with it. In this article you will find a (short) overview of the ideas and practice that have been developed so far.

Who is responsible for the independent monitoring? To our knowledge there are two basic models that answer this question. In the Foundation model there is a tripartite Foundation who is responsible, in the Accounting model the Company itself is responsible. However, in both there is direct involvement of trade unions and ngo's.

The basic idea is to make a Foundation which is tri-partite: it will consist of trade unions, ngo's and (federations of) companies. All parties in the Foundation agree on the contents of the Code of Conduct and on the principle of independent monitoring. If a Company wants to sign the Code, it can make an agreement with the Foundation. There will be a contract between the Company and the Foundation, making clear the obligations of each of the two. The Foundation will be responsible for the monitoring and it will use two ways to do this: by unannounced spot checks and by a complaint procedure.

The Foundation will subcontract the actual spot checks in the factories to a third party, for example a quality controlling company. We will call them the Monitor. The Monitor needs of course to be competent, qualified and trained in the field of working conditions. The Company must give information on where they source to the Monitor, the Monitor has to guarantee the confidentiality of these data. The Monitor will make unannounced spot checks on the production locations of the Company. The Monitor will interview workers from these factories, outside the factory and with guarantees for their safety. And also the Monitor will talk to trade unions and ngo's to get their opinion. With all this information, the Monitor will report back to the Foundation on whether the working conditions are according to the Code. If there are problems or violations of the Code, they will be discussed within the Foundation. The Foundation will give a binding advice to the Company on how the Company must act to improve the situation. The aim of the advice will always be to improve the situation. Cutting contracts and relocation production can only be used in the last resort if no measures of improvement are possible.

Apart from this work by the Monitor, there will be a complaint procedure. Every worker, trade union, ngo, journalist, or whomever finds a violation of the Code, has the right to file a complaint. The text of the Code will be put up in the factories in the local language, including a local address where you can go to complain. This should be a neutral place to guarantee the safety of the workers. For example an office from the church, a human rights organization or something like that, depending on the local context. The complaint will be passed on to the Foundation, who will act on it. The Foundation can send the Monitor to investigate the complaint, or hire somebody else to do that. Again, the Foundation will give an advice to the Company on how to act.

If the Company does not follow the advice from the Foundation, the Foundation has the right to make the case public. If this happens three times, the contract between the Foundation and the Company will be cut.

As in the Foundation model, there is a certain cooperation between (federations of) companies, trade unions and ngo's. The parties agree on the Code and the principle of independent monitoring. However, this model differs from the Foundation model in that here the Code is 'owned' by the Company itself. The Company will hire an independent company or agency to monitor for them. In theory this could be the same Monitor as in the Foundation model. The Monitor has to be accredited by the trade unions and ngo's and the information collected by the Monitor is also accessible to them. The Monitor has the same job as in the Foundation model: unannounced spot checks and interviewing workers on a confidential basis. The trade unions and ngo's involved in the Code have the right to accompany the Monitor on its visits.
There will also be a complaint procedure similar to the one described in the Foundation model.

Now when we speak about trade unions and ngo's, do we then mean North or South? This is of course a very important question. If this Code of Conduct approach claims to support workers in the South, these workers must not only be heard but also actively involved in such a system of independent monitoring. For example trade unions and ngo's in the South should give an input in the training of the Monitors and they should play a role in the spot checks and the complaint procedure. Both companies and trade unions/ngo's in the North must make sure that the organizations in the South are able to do so. If the organizations in the South need trainings or other facilities to enable them to play this role, these must be available. There are ideas about national or regional structures in the South, similar to the Foundation in the North. (In the long term we can dream about one global structure, however, we need to take smaller steps to get there). Some sort of discussion forum in Southern countries where trade unions, ngo's and companies can speak about the problems that arise with the system of independent monitoring and about the benefits that it brings would be a positive development.

In the Netherlands the first experiment with the Foundation model will start in 1997. With the Accounting model, some more work has been done already. The FIFA code, promoted by the ICTFU, FIET and ITGLWF with the ILO in an observer status, is based on this model. The work done by the Independent Monitoring Working Group in the UK looks in this direction as well. The New Economics Foundation (a member of this Working Group) is involved in doing ethical accounting for companies such as the Body Shop. The Fair Trade Foundation (another member of this working group) is involved in guiding companies who want to 'clean up' their production. Also the work that has been done with the Gap and El Salvador is an example of this.

Independent monitoring has been an important theme for the Clean Clothes Campaigns in Europe in 1996. We discussed it extensively with the Asian guests during the action tour in April and May 1996, and it was also an important topic on the first international CCC meeting at the end of that tour in May. Discussions have continued since then and the cooperation has become broader. On January 8th 1997 there was a first meeting of all the groups in Europe that are involved with work on codes of conduct and independent monitoring in the garments and sportswear sector. The Clean Clothes Campaigns from the different European countries were there, but also representatives of the international trade union movement and others such as the Fair Trade Foundation.

The long term aim of these groups is to come to a close cooperation, ideally even a common code of conduct and monitoring system if that is possible. The organizations try to move in that direction by information exchange and discussion about strategies. A next meeting of this kind will take place in May 1997. Both the Independent Monitoring Working Group in the UK and the CCC/SOMO in the Netherlands are investigating how to further develop the concept of independent monitoring and how to move this on into real life. Everybody is welcome to join the debate: please pass on all comments and experiences that you want to share.