|
Dear all,
As you know, we are very much into evaluating and strategizing
at the moment and have been bothering you with long questionnaires.
Many of you have taken the trouble of filling it in or gave your
time and ideas during an interview.
Thanks for this, and please find below the first paper to come
out of this process, the EVALUATION paper. This will be followed
end of january by a STRATEGY paper, so if all kinds of interesting
ideas for the direction the campaign should take that you mentioned
are not in here, do not worry, they will probably be in the strategy
paper.
If there are any insights, additions or points of view that you
feel would be useful for the evaluation or new things you think
of when reading the paper, please send them to us so we can incorporate
them in a final version, or an appendix, that will be circulated
right before the Barcelona conference (march 2001)
We hope you enjoy reading the paper as much as we enjoyed reading
your
answers!
Clean Clothes Campaign Discussion Paper: Evaluating
the CCC
Introduction
The Clean Clothes Campaign has been in existence for 10 years.
During that time the campaign has grown and the context in which
it operates has changed. Many more individuals and organizations
are now involved in the campaign, which has spread from the Netherlands
to many European countries. Our network of partners and contacts
around the world has mushroomed. For example, approximately 200
organizations participate in our international online mailing
list and 2500 receive our English language newsletter. Our website
receives 600 hits per week. CCC activities include not only demonstrations
and rallies that call attention to labour rights violations in
the garment industry, but also research and documentation of working
conditions in various countries; educational initiatives; an urgent
appeals system; the development of and participation in monitoring
and verification projects; international seminars, and local level
workshops. We are engaged in an ongoing dialogue with our colleagues
around the world to develop new ideas and better strategies to
achieve our goal of improving working conditions in the global
garment industry. For all these reasons therefore, at this juncture
it seems logical to pause and reflect on what we have done thus
far to reach our goal, and to evaluate our aims and activities.
We believe this evaluation process is crucial: making this effort
to contemplate our past will produce insights that will better inform
and facilitate our efforts to formulate strategies in the future.
In June 2000 the CCC agreed to develop a questionnaire that would
be used to compile evaluation perspectives (as well as strategy
ideas), not only from organizations within the campaigns, but to
seek information on how others perceive the campaign, its work,
and its structure. Gathering information in this manner was seen
as a preparatory step toward an international meeting to be held
in Barcelona in March 2000 where CCC activities would be evaluated
and strategies for the future discussed among members of the various
CCCs as well as representatives of partner organizations from other
parts of the world.
The questionnaire was circulated to all the CCCs in August. On
Sept. 1st it was sent out on the CCC's international mailing list.
At that time the questionnaire was also posted on our website with
an invitation for all those interested to submit a response. E-mails,
faxes, and letters were sent out to the groups and people who we
have worked with the campaign in the past, encouraging them to participate
in the evaluation process. The questionnaire was circulated a second
time on our international mailing list. Individual groups were contacted
with specific follow-up questions. In some cases, where possible,
people were interviewed in order to get their input. And finally,
the questionnaire appeared in the November 2000 edition of the CCC
newsletter, with a call for responses. Information from the questionnaire
would be used to form two discussion papers, this evaluation paper
and a paper on CCC strategy. Both papers are then by definition
incomplete -- the discussion is ongoing and are intended to generate
more feedback and provoke new ideas.
What follows below is a compilation of the responses we received
in response to the questions that dealt with evaluating the CCC.
For the sake of brevity we have tried to present this information
in the most concise format possible. First we will take a look at
what people understand the CCC to be, followed by what they think
it has achieved and what the strenghts of the campaign are. Then
we will look closer at the weaknesses of the campaign, in terms
of activities as well as organization and structure, and finally
draw some conclusions. We hope that this document will be used to
provoke further thought and discussion on the campaign's actions
and structure in the past and, in conjunction with the strategy
paper due to appear by the end of january, will lead to informed
steps to build a better, sustainable campaign for the future.
What is the CCC?
We began our survey by asking people to describe the CCC. We felt
that this would be illuminating - to see who and what people perceived
the campaign to be. All the respondents seemed to have similar views
on what the campaign is, seeing the campaign as focused on improving
working conditions in the global garment industry and mentioned
some of the specific activity areas which the campaign is involved
in. Organizations outside of the European structure of the CCC acknowledged
that the campaign exists in several European countries and noted
that it operates as a coalition. It is noteworthy though that they
described the CCC as made up of NGOs and/or consumer organizations,
failing to recognize that trade unions are also an important component
of each of the CCC national level coalitions.
What has the CCC achieved?
In general, it is believed that the CCC has helped to put the issue
of labour rights on "the agenda." One CCC member said
that there has been "a tremendous change in the quality of
the public discourse with the corporations (from outright denial
over the claim that they could not possibly take responsibility
to the principle promise that they are in fact prepared to take
responsibility." Members of the campaign (as well as respondents
in North America and the South/East) felt that the CCC's work had
resulted in a higher level of public awareness in Europe on labour
issues in the garment industry (one Hong Kong respondent noted that
this had an impact in Asia as well, and now there is interest there
in a variety of consumer campaigns)(1), as well as an increase in
institutional interest in corporate responsibility issues. Remarked
one of the CCCs: "We cannot claim credit for the level of awareness
but we know we have contributed to it. Whatever companies have done
in the past six years they have done as a result of consumer pressure
and media exposure. Consumer pressure especially, media exposure
to a lesser extent, are the product of campaigning activity."
(Several Northern groups specifically cited the increased awareness
and contact between workers' organizations in Asia and Europe, another
called the CCC's work in Eastern Europe "pioneering").
(2)
(1) Our Korean partners also responded with
information on the consumer campaign that they had started up.
They noted difficulties in reaching their target group of middle
class consumers, a hesitancy on the part of people to criticize
foreign investment during a time of financial crisis, and a need
to monitor the implementation of guidelines (involving government
and companies).
(2) Note that throughout this discussion
paper respondents have been broken down into three broad groups:
members of the CCC (meaning the European campaigns based in the
Netherlands, Belgium, France, Italy, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland,
Germany and Austria); "northern" groups (referring to
organizations in North America and Western Europe beyond those
that are members of the national-level coalitions included in
each of the European campaigns); and "southern/eastern"
groups (referring to organizations in Asia, Africa, Central and
South America and Eastern Europe). While we do not feel comfortable
with labels, especially those that bring with them a vast number
of stereotypes and generalizations (inhabitants of the north=rich,
developed, privileged; south=poor, undeveloped, etc.) we felt
the need to break down the responses we received based on position
in relation to the campaign, so to more clearly present and understand
the perspectives expressed.
Some within the CCC believe that we have gotten companies to start
working on these issues, and at the same time that we have earned
their respect. Meanwhile, we have supported efforts in the South/East
to improve working conditions. Some CCCers believed that the campaign
had done a good job in promoting responsible consumption in developed
countries.
Our work on pilot projects to develop knowledge on monitoring and
verification was seen as an accomplishment, not only from within
(the formation of the Fair Trade Foundation, for example, was also
recognized by a representative of a northern group as an accomplishment,
as was the signing of letters of intent in Switzerland and Sweden).
It is seen as a way to work on alternatives and be part of developing
solutions. For the CCCs this is important also because focusing
only on the problems makes campaigning very difficult: "..to
oppose one must propose".
Colleagues in the South felt that the CCC had helped workers to
understand subcontracting chains and had forced companies to respond
to the issues (though, "for the whole garment industry the
impact is not so strong. When the CCC targets a company there might
be some improvements at their subcontractors but not in the whole
industry"). In one case, a respondent (from Eastern Europe)
said that by making them aware of the situation, the CCC had pushed
them into action.
One respondent from Asia said that there had been better enforcement
of labour standards, due to pressure on buyers. One African trade
unionist reported that pressure from European consumers on the government
and companies was very helpful -- the government pressured the companies
to talk with the union and to work on a solution to the labour dispute.
Another respondent said that while people at the grassroots level
don't see any changes or experience any benefits, at least there
is resistance and a way for worker's voices to be heard, and the
companies are a bit restricted by the campaigns - "they are
aware of the people and the movements that are watching them."
One respondent said that in situations where the workers were unable
and restricted from forming labour unions, the introduction of "social
clauses" by companies due to CCC activities have allowed workers
to experience a certain amount of freedom.
Positive aspects of the campaign: Usefulness and Strengths
The CCC carries out a variety of activities; therefore we were
interested in hearing what people specifically found to be useful
about the CCC's work. What are the specific strengths of the campaign?
Respondents from within the European campaigns, from North America
and from production countries in the South and East all saw the
CCC as useful for its information provision (on companies and on
codes, for example) and as a link to other organizations, individuals
and networks. The CCC seems particularly valued for its function
as a clearinghouse for information, contacts and for developing
creative organizing and campaigning materials. CCC research was
seen as reliable and usable. The CCC was seen as being a source
of ideas, providing a critical analysis of both problems and potential
solutions.
Organizations in Europe and North America found the CCC's work
on awareness raising to be useful. The CCC message has broad appeal
and provides an entry point for the public. The campaign was seen
as creating possibilities for taking action on the issues, and organizations
in the North valued the CCC for demonstrating that it is possible
to do something. "The urgent appeals network is great. It's
a fantastic source of information, networking and building solidarity,"
responded one North American campaign. Organizations in the South,
meanwhile, also appreciated the CCC's work on protest letter writing
and solidarity campaigns. The existence of the CCC was seen as providing
leverage ("a bargaining tool") with factory management.
One respondent who had worked with an Asian trade union noted that
in their country action from the buyers was virtually the only means
of labour law enforcement. The CCC played a vital role in getting
the attention of and pressuring the buyers into taking responsibility
for the situation in their subcontractors."
Coordinating our activities at the European level was seen as inspiring
by European participants ("together we are a mass movement").
As a European network, participants reported that we functioned
well, supplying information (and therefore cutting down on the amount
of duplicate work) and access to a pool of experts. As a European-wide
organization some respondents from within the campaign believed
that we were more credible, taken more seriously, and more internationally
recognizable. For the CCCs who operate within organizations that
have multiple projects, the CCC was seen as a more successful project.
Southern organisations also saw the 'umbrella' as a strength "…by
contacting one organization you contact many".
European participants in the campaign felt that the CCC draws its
strength from being a broad movement with many different organizations
in the North, South and East, in combination with its narrow focus
on the garment industry. The whole concept of sharing work and working
in partnernship with many different organisations was seen by some
as the strength of the campaign. The focus on brand names and key
industry players (since they hold the most power) was also seen
as a source of strength from those within the campaign. Relying
on our own strength as consumers and members of civil society was
seen as important. The campaign conveys clear and appropriate messages.
Providing international support in specific cases of workers struggles
(providing them with bargaining power) was also seen as a strength.
According to some respondents outside the European campaigns, the
CCC draws its strength from the tenacity, determination and commitment
of its staff. One of the CCCs praised the Dutch/International secretariat
for its grasp of the issues, and for being supportive, energetic,
ready to take the initiative, willing to share information and the
results of its work, and to provide access to Southern partners.
The campaign's strategy of outreach and networking was seen as a
strength. The campaign is valued for being a broad-based one that
is based on alliances between consumers, workers and trade unions.
One Northern respondent noted the value of the thought the CCC puts
into the relationship between campaigning and solidarity (organizing)/workers
rights.
The CCC's strategic thinking and ability to straddle the activist-policy
divide were seen as important strengths, as were the CCC's ability
to mount particularly striking publicity campaigns ("that could
be usefully copied by other movements in the 'industrialized' world",
our creativity was also noted). Detailed knowledge and popular campaigns
based on serious research were seen as the CCC's strengths by some
of the Northern groups. One Northern group felt that the CCC drew
strength from its emphasis on organizing to have workers' organizers
from Asia speak in Europe, another praised the international seminars
the campaign has organized. "More opportunities to meet and
share experiences like the seminar in Germany would be great; the
seminar brought together a broad range of organizations from many
different countries."
Other successes cited by Northern groups were the campaign's work
done to popularzie the issue of a living wage and to encourage debate
on the effectiveness of codes of conduct.
The CCC's southern partners believe that the campaign's international
networking (and collaboration) has been a positive force for change
and has supported workers' movements. The campaign's solidarity
actions, consumer campaigns, pressure on governments and companies,
work on developing monitoring systems, information exchange (for
example, efforts to bring workers to Europe and also efforts to
share information on consumers' reactions, as well as providing
workers with information on company codes of conduct while they
provided the CCC with information on product labels/working conditions)
were all seen as strengths. "…as we are active with workers
in the South on the same theme, we are ainterested in relations
with the North, to help the workers communicate with the TNCs who
are responsible for their situation". Also, helping people
(workers and consumers) to understand that globalization is not
"far away" but in fact touches their lives was seen as
an important contribution by the campaign.
The CCC's "fairly strong attempts to listen to workers
from the South" was seen as one of the campaign's strengths.
"…The fact that it is an alliance, where Western organizations
and people can support workers' organizations in developing countries,
without dominating them, is a very important feature. Developing
country organizations do not have the power to compete against the
education and experience of the factory owners, who are well-educated
business people (usually men, while the workers are women, which
is another factor). CCC "lends" the workers' a good Western
education and a Western-style network, which helps balance the scale,"
said one representative from a Southern organization.
Negative aspects of the campaign and weaknesses
People were asked to comment on aspects of the campaign they found
not useful. One respondent from the South felt that communicating
with companies was a waste of time. Another respondent from the
South noted a gap between consumers and workers. Campaigns should
have more understanding of the different impacts in different situations
of campaigning strategies (ex. attracting attention to child labour,
kids lose their jobs, or boycotts mean workers lose their jobs).
And strategies in general should have a more holistic approach (linking
consumption and production).
When asked about weaknesses, two Southern organizations cited capacity
problems, saying that the CCC demands too much from them and adds
to their work. Some said that they would like the CCC to do more
education on codes, while also questioning the appropriateness of
codes. They want more links to northern labour movements, more pressure
on governments (not just consumers and companies), better links
with workers ("the voice, needs, and demands of the workers
are very far away from the campaign"), and more education on
globalization (specifically on the issue of lowering social standards
for the sake of competitiveness). Environmental concerns were mentioned
as an important area that should be considered by the campaign (specifically
in relation to water pollution as a result of garment production).
Southern partners said that they had trouble maintaining e-mail
contact (language and capacity problems) which made it difficult
to take advantage of the work the CCC does. More personal and face-to-face
contacts would build up trust and personal relationships, and would
help improve communications. The importance of the issue of improving
communications cannot be highlighted strongly enough. Face-to-face
contacts do not necessarily help. An Asian activist who had recently
spent time with the campaign in Europe and had knowledge of a CCC
research project in the past cited as weaknesses that the campaign
was not distributing information on the internet, and that there
was no European level campaigning…..
Other Southern groups felt that much more contact and joint work
was necessary.
Another group noted that without regular communications, updates
and links with labour groups in production countries it is difficult
to monitor corporate practices at the factory level. "At the
same time, it gives companies some kind of space to promote their
improvement of labour practices but CCC cannot access the workers
themselves to cross check what the companies report."
The campaign was taken to task by northern groups for not always
making it clear that the CCC's focus is not only on conditions for
workers in developing countries particularly Asia. One respondent
noted that focusing on developing countries can reinforce an attitude
that implies that there are no problems in Europe or developed countries.
It is important for consumers to realise that the issues are also
present here in Europe. In the experience of one of the international
organizations that responded to the survey, it is also helpful to
groups in, for example, Asia, when they hear that there are similar
issues within the industry in Europe (bad conditions, low pay, etc.).
Another respondent noted that it's important to link the experiences
of those working in the northern economies to those in the south,
and that this is of particular relevance to homeworkers. Related
to this, it was noted that the campaign doesn't do enough to address
the issues of informal sector workers and production (ex. How do
codes work for the informal sector?). One Northern respondent saw
lack of cooperation with other "product-sector" campaigns
as a weakness. (Note: this issue of changing/expanding the CCC focus/structure
is taken up in the CCC strategy discussion paper).
Within the campaign, there was the feeling that capacity problems
were causing an inability to follow up as thoroughly as necessary.
One of the CCCs remarked, "Should we have set out earlier to
increase our overall capacity? Or is now exactly the right time?"
People said that the CCC's presence "on the street" was
not great enough, according to their partners (though some in Asia
thought just the opposite), and that more speedy information exchange
on working conditions is necessary so that we don't each have to
do it for ourselves.
One of the campaigns mentioned the CCC's inability to develop "easy-to-use"
consumer guides (i.e. rankings for shopping), which we are constantly
asked to produce. "We have no choice but to communicate that
each consumer has the responsibility to inform him/herself and that
this is not possible without putting some effort into it. In other
words, we need to foster a culture of consumers that is ready to
accept that."
One of the CCCs felt that not spending enough time considering
corporate responses to the campaign is one of the CCC's weaknesses.
"We should take greater account of the strategies the companies
have evolved to counter our activities when formulating our own
strategies. For example, entering into a dialogue with NGOs...,
companies terminating contracts with suppliers as a result of campaigns,
etc." Has our work on codes of conduct given companies access
to a new legitimacy and allowed them to whitewash their practices?
"This is not to say that we should not have focused on codes
or that we should end our focus on codes -- companies would be only
too happy if we did," remarked one CCC. Other campaigns, in
North America as well, were also very aware of the need to evaluate
the code work every step of the way, to be sure that it was worthwhile.
The work on the monitoring and verification projects was seen as
very time- and resource consuming and not giving much results in
terms of actual improvement of labour conditions or in terms of
offering consumers a choice.
Although a start was made with work on legal issues and campaigning
for more public regulations (ex. International forum on legal ways
of implementing codes, resolution by European parliament, cities
for ethical procurement) people felt this was not developed sufficiently
and there should be more clarity on the interplay between these
strategies and the work with codes.
One of the campaigns felt that the exchanges with companies were
too far removed from the educational work with consumers, and they
were not clear anymore what to tell consumersafter a company has
adopted a 'good' code and/or has become involved in a monitoring/verification
project. One of the campaigns said that they would like to see the
campaign do a better job at exchanging methods. Another said that
cooperation with campaigns in other regions (the United States and
Central America) should be strengthened. One other Northern organization
said that they wanted to receive more news on CCC success stories.
We asked people what they thought the campaign should have accomplished,
but did not. CCC respondents felt that we should have transformed
labour conditions (while acknowledging that our partners recognize
that what we do does help) and built an independent verification
system. Within the campaign, people thought we should have been
doing all our activities more and more in depth. Other Northern
groups also called for a stronger, more active campaign, with some
respondents noting that alliances and coordination could be better
and that the CCC could take on more leadership in the Nike campaign.
One Northern respondent felt we should have been able forge better
links with, and have our issues carried by, other international
networks/campaigns. Specifically the environmental movement and
the anti-globalization movement were mentioned, the last one did
make Nike into a symbol of what is wrong with the global economy
but are not very well linked to our campaigns.
More specifically, CCCers believed there should have been more
follow-up on urgent appeals cases, more cooperation with consumer
unions, and more cooperation with labour unions (though recognizing
that these varies from country to country). In terms of content,
one respondent felt there should have been more attention to the
gender aspect of the issues we deal with (ex. Nike announced they
are targeting European women, why aren't we? Why aren't there more
women's organizations in our national platform?). Others felt we
should have been able to get more done at the level of our national
governments. One Northern respondent noted that more should have
been done on the issue of homeworking (we could learn from the experiences
of the Fair Wear Campaign in Australia). Several CCCs and Northern
groups felt the lack of coordinated work, CCC as a whole, on environmental
issues is a big weakness. Some active CCC groups work on environmental
issues (ex. Biological cotton) but it remains isolated.
Southern and Eastern groups also noted failures in terms of the
scope of the campaign -they believed that Eastern European organizations
should have joined the campaign earlier, that there should have
been more attention to the diffulties surrounding the issue of child
labour, and that more attention should have been given to the harassment
of women and pressure on women to move from the formal to the informal
sector.
More companies should have signed onto the CCC code by now and there
should have been the implementation of a monitoring system.
One Southern respondent said we failed to change TNC behaviour
(but then added that it is unfair to demand that the CCC should
accomplish that). Another said that buyers should have been forced
to take a more comprehensive approach to their subcontractors so
that there were more visible improvements in working conditions
across the industry (buyers intervened primarily on specific problems
rather than on fixing up conditions to prevent problems from arising).
The CCC was not able to implement codes for all subcontractors,
noted another respondent. Again, the usefullness of codes as a tool
for improving labour conditions was questionned.
While one organization said they felt involved in strategy development,
another said that there should have been more strategizing with
local organizations and trade unions. "Trade unions are far
away from the campaigns, they should be more linked to them. We
need to fill the gaps between campaigns and trade unions."
One respondent called for mobilization and more workshops to be
held in Asia.
In terms of information provision, one Southern respondent believed
that the CCC should have compiled a database to trace information
on companies and subcontracting chains.
Conclusions
· The campaign's main successes are seen to be raising awareness
on the issues, networking, and information provision (though failure
to communicate our successes).
· The CCC's urgent appeals network is seen as one of the
campaigns strengths, both as a system for distributing information
and motivating action. But there is a feeling that the follow through
on cases needs more attention (in terms of strategy, given that
companies often "cut and run" when campaigning draws attention
to labour rights violations at a particular factory, and in practical
terms, i.e. how long do we continue to follow a case).
· The CCC is recognized for it's contacts and cooperation
with Asian groups - this is an accomplishment in itself, but points
to the need to strengthen links with other regions (Africa, Central
& Eastern Europe, Central America, North America). There is
concern that the issue of violations of labour rights in developed
countries have not been addressed enough.
· In terms of content, homeworking and gender issues were
seen as needing more attention. There is interest in covering environmental
concerns as well. Cooperation with other "product-sector"
campaigns (ex. baby milk groups, toys) and/or the environmental
movement or anti-globalization movement could be a way to strengthen
the campaign.
· There were mixed messages on codes all around, as some
respondents felt they were not appropriate or even a failure, and
others felt they were one of the most important campaigning tools
and strategically usefull for creating space for debate, publicity
and enable pressure. Most people are "…well aware of the
dual nature of codes. On the one hand, they give TNCs an excellent
public relations opportunity. At the same time they give us a leverage
through which we can pressure companies to improve their workers'
rights situation and hopefully create conditions that facilitate
the right to organise and the right to collective bargaining".*
* (LARIC in Change, bulletin of HKCIC, july
1999)
· Capacity problems were noted at all levels (the CCC needs
to do more, but we don't currently have the capacity to do so; we
ask our partners to do more than they can, etc.) Capacity problems
have an impact on other issues (for example capacity to expand communications
between North and South -- communication problems slow down or limit
effectiveness/participation in the urgent appeals system and other
campaign activities/resources).
· Better links between North and South -- in terms of strategizing,
input and awareness raising (should go both ways, ex. on globalization
-- make connections between those working in Northern and Southern
economies). Some Southern groups would like the campaign to do more
education work (on codes for example). The relationship between
trade unions and NGOs,within and ouside of the campaign, deserves
more attention.
· The interplay between codes (often voluntary mechanisms)
and public regulation (local labour law or international legal measures)
at different levels was mentioned as an area needing attention.
Few people commented specifically on legal initiatives (though there
was some mention of increasing our lobbying effort at the local/national
level), though this is logical as it is a relatively new area of
activity for the CCC.
|
