The Guides – for employment and recruitment agencies, ICT companies, and oil and gas companies – were developed over the past 18 months by  Shift and IHRB through extensive research and multistakeholder consultation with representatives from the three industries as well as governments, trade unions, civil society, academia and other experts.  Read more about the Guides’ development on the IHRB and Shift websites.

Each Guide offers practical advice on how to implement the corporate responsibility to respect human rights in day-to-day business operations in each industry through step-by-step guidance.  At each step, they summarise what the UN Guiding Principles expect, offer a range of approaches and examples for how to put them into practice, and link users to additional resources that can support their work. They are intended to help companies “translate” respect for human rights into their own systems and cultures. The Guides take particular account of the experience of EU companies, but aim to be as globally applicable as possible. The Guides are not intended to be legally binding.

Full blog post by Isaac Shapiro and Scott Nova on the website of the Economic Policy Institute (EPI)

Read in isolation, the second verification assessment by the Fair Labor Association (FLA) of remediation steps at three Foxconn factories making Apple products might lead one to think that essentially all labor rights violations have been addressed.  The FLA’s report, for instance, features the claim that Foxconn has already completed “98.3 percent” of the necessary steps to correct the problems at its factories.  But while some of the steps taken – such as reducing work weeks to below 60 hours and certain safety and health improvements – do represent progress, the overall score given by the FLA as well as the accompanying rosy language about reforms are fundamentally deceptive.  Consider:

The FLA ignores crucial reforms promised by Apple and Foxconn, including increasing wages enough to offset reductions in work hours and providing back pay for uncompensated work time.  On March 29, 2012, the FLA described the basic remedial actions to be undertaken by Foxconn and Apple by July 2013.  Paragraph five of this announcement contained the promise that Foxconn would increase compensation enough to offset any reduction in overtime hours.  Paragraph six contained the promise that Foxconn and Apple would provide retroactive pay for the many circumstances in which workers had not been compensated for all their overtime hours.  Paragraph seven of the March 2012 announcement said a study would be undertaken to determine the amount of compensation necessary to provide for basic needs; according to the FLA’s own survey, 64 percent of workers said their compensation did not provide them enough to meet their basic needs.

The FLA has not reported progress regarding any of these important promises; indeed, its second report does not mention them at all.  When it comes to these promises, failing grades currently appear more appropriate, contrasting sharply with the FLA’s “98.3 percent” score.

The FLA continues to treat half-measures as full remedies.   Our analysis of the first FLA verification report found that the organization frequently gave Foxconn full credit for partial reforms.  For example, the FLA reported that the illegal practice of not compensating some workers for up to 30 minutes of overtime per day had been fully corrected. In fact, Foxconn merely reduced the amount of uncompensated overtime from 30 minutes to 15.

The second FLA verification report repeats this pattern.  In particular, it is especially misleading that the FLA treats changes in the composition of union leadership committees as full remedies when they are potentially meaningless.  The FLA touts significant progress in the proportion of union committees that actually consist of workers as opposed to managers (in January 2013, 39 percent workers/61 percent managers in the Guanlan factory – up from zero worker representation in June 2012; 41 percent in the Longhua facility – up from 10 percent; and 29.5 percent in the Chengdu factory – up from 7 percent).  The FLA write-up, however, ignores the central point: the majority of the union leadership, in all of these facilities, is still composed of factory managers.  Moreover, the FLA does not assess the actual influence of these committees; even if the majority of the members of these committees are eventually workers, it is far from clear that will they have any significant voice when it comes to decisions made at these factories.  A new analysis by SACOM raises plausible concerns that sham unions may be the outcome.

Overtime hours still fail to comply with Chinese law.  The FLA finds that in most cases workers at the three Foxconn factories no longer have to work more than 60 hours per week. Work weeks of 60 hours, however, are still in violation of Chinese law, as the FLA acknowledges.  The FLA has said it will not judge the factories against the actual legal standard of about 49 hours per week until July 1, 2013; it is far from clear that this standard will be achieved by then and, as in prior reports, the FLA places undue emphasis on the artificial threshold of 60 hours.

Other reports and Apple’s own audits suggest that whatever progress has been made at the three factories examined by the FLA has not been replicated throughout Apple’s supply chain, including at other Foxconn factories.  Take the potent issue of abusive student internships.  The FLA says such abuse has ended at the three factories studied, but does not address troubling reports of continued abuse of interns at other factories that supply Apple.  For example, a September 6, 2012, story in the Shanghai Daily found “Thousands of students in an east China city [were] being forced to work at a Foxconn plant [producing the iPhone 5] after classes were suspended at the beginning of the new semester.”

In another example of progress perhaps occurring only at the three Foxconn factories receiving the most scrutiny, a September 2012 SACOM investigation of Foxconn’s Zhengzhou factories, which were not examined by the FLA, found that as iPhone production reached peak levels, overtime hours on some iPhone production lines sometimes reached 100 hours per month.  This same SACOM investigation found that most workers were not receiving the ergonomic breaks the FLA’s first verification report said were being provided.  (Foxconn and Apple had promised two daily ergonomic breaks for workers, a major issue given the nature of the work.)  An undercover documentary that aired on France’s public television network in December 2012 also found workers at Foxconn’s Zhengzhou factories making the iPhone 5 faced harsh living and working conditions, such as residing in unfinished dorms without electricity or running water and forced student internships.

Further, the data in Apple’s recent report on its entire supply chain indicate limited and choppy progress on labor rights issues, with serious violations far too common. Our recent analysis of the report noted that “in more than 1 in 4 cases (28 percent), Apple itself finds that the practices of its suppliers are not in compliance with its wage and benefit standards.  In nearly 4 in 10 cases (38 percent), supplier practices are not in compliance with juvenile protection standards.  In more than 4 in 10 cases (41 percent), supplier practices fail to comply with ergonomic standards.”  Of note, the three factories examined by the FLA include 178,000 workers, while Apple says there are more than one million workers in its supply chain.

—–The FLA’s second interim report paints a misleading picture of progress on the working conditions experienced by the workers in Apple’s supply chain.  The FLA report creates the impression that nearly all necessary reforms have already been implemented. However, a closer analysis indicates that important promised remedies have been dropped; that what the FLA characterizes as full remediation in some areas is actually partial progress or worse; that the work hours at the three factories examined are still far out of compliance with Chinese law; that evidence contrary to the FLA findings has been ignored, including evidence that reforms at the investigated factories have not been matched by reforms at other factories making Apple products; and that Apple’s own recent report portrays widespread labor rights violations throughout its supply chain.

*For more information on the working conditions at Apple suppliers in China, see www.AppleLabor.com

The FLA’s second interim report paints a misleading picture of progress on the working conditions experienced by the workers in Apple’s supply chain.  The FLA report creates the impression that nearly all necessary reforms have already been implemented. However, a closer analysis indicates that important promised remedies have been dropped; that what the FLA characterizes as full remediation in some areas is actually partial progress or worse; that the work hours at the three factories examined are still far out of compliance with Chinese law; that evidence contrary to the FLA findings has been ignored, including evidence that reforms at the investigated factories have not been matched by reforms at other factories making Apple products; and that Apple’s own recent report portrays widespread labor rights violations throughout its supply chain.

See more at: http://www.epi.org/blog/polishing-apple-fla-report-misleads-labor/#sthash.MPOn1JTA.dpuf

- See more at: http://www.epi.org/blog/polishing-apple-fla-report-misleads-labor/#sthash.MPOn1JTA.dpuf

Global health and justice groups demand that TCO withdraw its sustainability certification award for Samsung’s S4 Smartphone

Occupational and Environmental health and justice and workers’ rights groups from Asia, Europe and North America today issued a joint statement condemning TCO Development – the Swedish certification organization – for awarding its first “Sustainability Certification” to Samsung’s Galaxy S4 Smartphone, in spite of the fact that Samsung has been severely criticized in South Korea and elsewhere for its dismal occupational safety and health record.   More than 180 young Samsung workers have developed occupational diseases such as cancer and 70 of them have already died after having been exposed to hazardous chemicals on the job.  In addition, a recent leakage of hydrogen fluoride in a Samsung semiconductor factory in Hwaseong killed another worker. (See the references below for further details). 

 “TCO’s action amounts to ‘green washing’ of the worst kind” said Sanjiv Pandita, Executive Director of Asia Monitor Resource Centre, based in Hong Kong.  “This perverse certification award sends the wrong signals which reward a company that has increased its market share while at the same time sacrificing the health of its workers. TCO has severely undermined its reputation by ignoring Samsung’s treatment of its workers. Samsung is a company which has been at the forefront consistently in denying basic workers’ rights such as the right to organise, unionise and a right to a safe working environment – they certainly do not deserve recognition and credentials of this nature.”

“This action dishonors the memory of so many innocent young people who sacrificed their lives while working for Samsung” added Dr. Jeong-ok Kong, an occupational health physician working with the Supporters for Health and Right of People in Semiconductor Industry (SHARPS), which is based in South Korea.  Data collected by SHARPS and submitted to the South Korean government details how more than 180 young Samsung production workers have gotten cancer and other chronic diseases.

 “This kind of irresponsible action by TCO gives the terms “green label” and “sustainability” a bad name and indicates that either TCO is unaware of Samsung’s callous disregard for their workers’ health or has decided to ignore the disturbing pattern of occupational illness, which would be even worse,” said Ted Smith, Coordinator of International Campaign for Responsible Technology, based in  San Jose California.  “TCO must not claim that its certification rewards ‘sustainable’ behavior - including social issues and occupational health - while at the same time failing to acknowledge the well documented cancer cluster at Samsung.”

“We are very disappointed in TCO Development because of its actions in this case” explained Hilda Palmer, Chair of the National Hazards Campaign in the UK.  “We’ve come to expect credible actions from TCO and we believe that the only way to correct this action is for TCO to withdraw its certification of Samsung’s S4 Galaxy and go back to the drawing board.  TCO must base its certifications based on the real world and require that a certified company have an exemplary record on occupational and environmental health as well as strict adherence to ILO requirements, and not base their decision merely on modest, unenforceable procedural niceties.”

“Sustainability certification is far too simple a tool to ensure respect for human rights in the complex global electronics” supply chain, added Pauline Overeem, Coordinator of Good Electronics, based in Amsterdam. “To address the grave labour issues in electronics manufacturing including the industry’s failure to provide safe workplaces, workers should have a say about their working and employment conditions. Enabling labour rights such as the freedom of association and the right to bargain collectively are crucial. Samsung is clearly not the right example here.”

• “Leukemia and non-Hodgkin lymphoma in semiconductor industry workers in Korea”

• By Inah Kim, Hyun J. Kim, Sin Y. Lim, & Jungok Kongyoo, International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health, 2012 VOL. 18 NO. 2. - http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/maney/oeh/2012/00000018/00000002/art00011

• “A heroic struggle to understand the risk of cancers among workers in the electronics industry: the case of Samsung” - http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/maney/oeh/2012/00000018/00000002/art00002

• http://stopsamsung.wordpress.com/2011/06/25/a-historical-but-partial-victory-of-leukemia-victims-of-samsung-semiconductor-factory-court-orders-compensation/

• HF leak at Samsung:  http://stopsamsung.wordpress.com/2013/02/05/samsung-continues-to-cover-up-fatal-chemical-leaks-with-more-lies/

• http://stopsamsung.wordpress.com/2013/02/27/fatal-gas-leaks-at-samsung-jan-27-28/.

Background of the TCO Development Sustainability Certification (excerpts from TCO documents)

http://tcodevelopment.com/news/samsung-galaxy-s4-first-to-achieve-sustainability-certification-for-smartphones/

“Criteria in TCO Certified Smartphones are developed from a life cycle perspective, including requirements for socially responsible manufacturing, health/safety and the reduction of hazardous materials. Product compliance is verified by an independent, accredited third party.”

A TCO Certified smartphone must meet requirements in the following areas:

•          Socially responsible manufacturing

•          Environment

•          Ergonomics /health & safety

The criteria for TCO Certified include environmental and social aspects, and have been broadened from product focus to also include the production phase. This is a result of increased expectations around the world to respect human rights in the production and development of the products.

http://tcodevelopment.com/files/2013/05/TCO_Certified_Smartphones_1.0.pdf

B.7 Corporate Social Responsibility (note that these criteria are procedural, not substantive with no metrics)

B.7.1.1 General Clarifications

TCO Development is from this version of the criteria taking the next step in relation to Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) by introducing an extended mandate regarding supply chain responsibility, since the way in which products are produced is gaining importance for consumers as well as professional buyers. Within the ICT industry supply chain responsibility is increasingly seen as a hygiene determinant.

We aim to be a sustainability label that assures good products in three relevant areas – environmental, social and ergonomics. We want the label to be proof for compliance with public procurement ethical criteria as well as with private sector CSR polices.

The Social performance criteria are based on the eight ILO core conventions and local legislation. This stipulates minimum standards as for the situation in the production facilities. ILO (International Labour Organization) is a United Nations specialized agency with the aim to promote social justice and humane working conditions.

B.7.1.1.1 Requires membership in the Electronic Industry Citizenship Coalition (EICC)

Wien, 04.06.2013 – Apple distanziert sich von seinem langgedienten Zulieferer Foxconn. Sein günstiges iPhone wird das Unternehmen beim Foxconn-Konkurrenten Pegatron anfertigen lassen. Doch nicht die Medienaufmerksamkeit nach drei weiteren Selbstmorden bei Foxconn hat den IT-Giganten zum Umdenken bewegt, sondern Medienberichten zufolge „strategische Gründe“ und günstigere Preise. „Anstatt sich bei Bekanntwerden der menschenunwürdigen Arbeitsbedingungen aus der Affäre zu ziehen, sollte Apple Verbesserungen der Arbeitsbedingungen gemeinsam mit seinen Zulieferern umsetzen“, kritisiert Andrea Ben Lassoued, Leiterin der Südwind Kampagne Clean-IT.

Pegatron ist für Apple kein neuer Geschäftspartner. Ein kleiner Teil des Apple-Smartphones sowie das iPad Mini werden bereits in dem 2008 gegründeten Unternehmen produziert. Dennoch ist dem Unternehmen mit dem neuen Auftrag ein großer Fang gelungen, denn es plant die Zahl seiner Mitarbeiter um 40 % auf 140.000 ArbeiterInnen zu erhöhen.

„Bis zu 200 – teilweise unbezahlte – Überstunden im Monat, SchülerInnen die von ihren LehrerInnen zur Arbeit im Unternehmen gezwungen werden und andernfalls keinen Abschluss bekommen sowie Pausen, die nicht eingehalten werden: Die Liste der Arbeitsrechtsverletzungen bei Pegatron ist lang und Verbesserungen sind keine in Sicht“, berichtet Ben Lassoued. Laut der Südwind-Partnerorganisation SACOM sei ein Jahr nachdem es zu einer Explosion bei Pegatron kam, bei der 61 ArbeiterInnen verletzt wurden, die Belüftung noch nicht verbessert worden. „Apple kann kaum behaupten, dass diese Erkenntnisse neu wären, denn die Explosion bei Pegatron ging 2011 durch alle Medien“, so Ben Lassoued.

Die Kampagne Clean-IT und ihre Partnerorganisationen in Hong Kong und China kritisieren Apple und seine Zulieferbetriebe wie Foxconn oder Pegatron schon seit langem wegen menschenunwürdiger Arbeitsbedingungen: zu geringe Löhne, lange Überstunden, Ausbeutung von StudentInnen und psychische Misshandlungen stehen dabei im Mittelpunkt. Die NGOs fordern von Pegatron, Foxconn und ihren Auftraggebern, Verantwortung für die Arbeitsbedingungen zu übernehmen und sich für die Rechte der ArbeiterInnen einzusetzen.

Clean-IT hat sich zum Ziel gesetzt gemeinsam mit internationalen Partnern bis 2015 eine Monitoringorganisation für die globale Elektronikindustrie zu initiieren.

Hintergrundinfo:
SACOM-Report: Apple fails in its responsibility to monitor suppliers
de.scribd.com/doc/127329355/2013-02-26-Apple-Fails-in-Its-Responsibility

Für Rückfragen und Interviewvereinbarung:
Andrea Ben Lassoued
Leiterin Clean-IT-Kampagne, Südwind
Tel.: 01 405 55 15 320
E-Mail: andrea.benlassoued@suedwind.at
www.suedwind-agentur.at
www.clean-it.at

Die Südwind-Kampagne Clean-IT wird von der Europäischen Union und der Österreichischen Entwicklungszusammenarbeit gefördert. Die von Clean-IT vertretenen Standpunkte geben die Ansicht von Clean-IT wieder und stellen somit in keiner Weise die offizielle Meinung der Fördergeber dar.

Südwind setzt sich als entwicklungspolitische Nichtregierungsorganisation seit über 30 Jahren für eine nachhaltige globale Entwicklung, Menschenrechte und faire Arbeitsbedingungen weltweit ein. Durch schulische und außerschulische Bildungsarbeit, die Herausgabe des Südwind-Magazins und anderer Publikationen thematisiert Südwind in Österreich globale Zusammenhänge und ihre Auswirkungen. Mit öffentlichkeitswirksamen Aktionen, Kampagnen- und Informationsarbeit engagiert sich Südwind für eine gerechtere Welt.

Suedwind is part of the GoodElectronics Network.