Bienestar is a for-profit company, with a long-term goal 'to help organize the better half of the global garment industry within the next 10 years'.

The company was set up by labour and feminist activists Jeff Ballinger, Lynne Lyman and Natalia Muina amongst others. 7.5% of pretax profit is donated to anti-sweatshop organizations and union organising funds in the developing world(1).

Their long-term objective is to own and operate some of their manufacturing (between 50% and 70%) in model factories located in free trade zones in the developing world, to enable organising elsewhere in the free trade zones. They note the challenge that as employers, they cannot organise workers without creating a company union(2).

Markets: No Sweat products are sold through the internet and in stores in USA, Canada, UK, Austria, Belgium, Finland, Germany, France, Sweden, Ireland, Norway, the Netherlands, Australia and New Zealand.

Activities: Bienestar International manufactures footwear and casual clothing under the brand name No Sweat. Information about workers' rights is also available through the company's website.

Producers: All No Sweat clothing and footwear is made in production facilities with independent trade union members or in worker cooperatives in the US, Canada and the developing world, with the expectation that at least 30% of their production will be in the USA(3). No Sweat believes they are the first open-source clothing manufacturer, meaning they reveal the source of all their manufacturers. They give two reasons for this: one is so that further business can be generated for the unionised production facilities and secondly, to encourage other brands and retailers to reveal their sources (4).

No Sweat manufacturers (undated) listed on their website(5) are:

• Arja Textiles, Bethlehem, Palestine: unionised
• Artex Knitting Mills, Inc.: unionised
• NJ Headware / Unionwear: unionised
• Nueva Vida, Nicaragua: worker owned cooperative
• PT Sepatu Bata TBK, Indonesia (possibly pulled out)Quality Knitting Limited, Toronto, Canada: unionised
• Union Line Inc. / Graybear, Chicago, USA: unionised
• Universal Sportswear, Bangor, USA: unionised
• Wigwam Mills, Inc., USA: unionised

Reporting: A profile of each of No Sweat's manufacturers is available on the company's website, although information about a number of manufacturers appears not to have been updated since 2006. The information available varies from manufacturer to manufacturer, but generally includes information about wages and benefits, staff visits and conditions. In addition, 'Each box of No Sweat's faux Chucks contains a card detailing the wages and benefits of the Indonesian workers who manufactured the shoes'(7).

Monitoring and verification: No Sweat begin the answer to a frequently asked question about trade unions with, 'To paraphrase Winston Churchill, unions, like all democratic forms of governance, are the worst systems conceivable, except for all the alternatives'. Recognising trade unions vary in their ability to represent workers, No Sweat look at the history of the trade unions(8), their track record, their leadership and their rank and file.

Reports of staff visits to factories are available on the No Sweat website(9). Whilst choosing not to work with corporate sponsored auditors, the company says they will use independent auditors in Palestine and that audits have been carried out in Indonesia. No Sweat argue that 'Corporate sponsored workplace monitoring is a top down solution. Independent trade unions are a bottom up solution. We favor both - what the British call a belt and braces approach. A binding union contract turns the workers themselves into a monitoring presence that's hard to fool(10).

Comments and questions Sadly, No Sweat did not respond to questions from the Clean Clothes Campaign.

No Sweat's approach in terms of actually looking at using their leverage to support independent organising is to be welcomed. Unlike many other initiatives it has an approach that has the potential to open space up for worker organsing and empowerment.

Making its list of manufacturers available is a way of encouraging other brands and retailers to source from the same locations. However, it would be useful if the information about suppliers was updated regularly, so that it is clear which period the information applies to.

It's not clear from the No Sweat website how or how often the trade union / cooperative communicates with No Sweat. It is also not possible to know if a collective bargaining agreement between management and the trade union needs to be in place, or being worked towards, before No Sweat choose to source from the factory.