abusesaffiliationarrow-downarrow-leftarrow-rightarrow-upattack-typeburgerchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-upClock iconclosedeletedevelopment-povertydiscriminationdollardownloademailenvironmentexternal-linkfacebookfiltergenderglobegroupshealthC4067174-3DD9-4B9E-AD64-284FDAAE6338@1xinformation-outlineinformationinstagraminvestment-trade-globalisationissueslabourlanguagesShapeCombined Shapeline, chart, up, arrow, graphLinkedInlocationmap-pinminusnewsorganisationotheroverviewpluspreviewArtboard 185profilerefreshIconnewssearchsecurityPathStock downStock steadyStock uptagticktooltiptwitteruniversalityweb

このページは 日本語 では利用できません。English で表示されています

ストーリー

2024年6月13日

Company responses to BHRRC report - Just for show: Worker representation in Asia's garment sector and the role of fashion brands and employers

In June 2024, the Business and Human Rights Resource Centre published a report entitled "Just for Show": Worker representation in Asia's garment sector and the role of fashion brands and employers. The report is based on interviews and focus group discussions, and a survey, conducted with trade unions and other labour advocates across Bangladesh, Cambodia, India, Indonesia, Sri Lanka and Pakistan.

The research revealed that workers' rights are being systematically undermined through the prevalent use of representation structures that are often "just for show" - denying them proper avenues for collective bargaining and representation in the workplace. These structures are most commonly workplace committees and non-independent "yellow" unions, which are often ineffective and / or co-opted by and functioning in the interests of management.

Among survey respondents, 82% agreed or strongly agreed with the statement: “Employers prefer to engage and bargain with other bodies, such as yellow unions and worker committees, instead of the independent trade union”; 73% said denial of factory access for trade union activities occurred at their factories while 64% said independent trade unions are not allowed to recruit during work hours.

Despite policy commitments on freedom of association and collective bargaining from international fashion brands, in practice, they are falling short and failing to intervene to proactively support this fundamental and foundational right for workers in their supply chains. Only 9% of survey respondents agreed with the statement: “In general, international brands respect freedom of association and I trust them to intervene when management undermines or threatens independent unions.” On the other hand, 50% said: “International brands say that they respect freedom of association but it’s just for show – they rarely intervene when there is an issue,”.

Ahead of the report's launch, the Business and Human Rights Resource Centre contacted all of the supplier factories and fashion brands named in the report for their comment on the allegations to which they were linked. Their responses can be seen below. This page will be updated as further company responses are received.

企業への回答リクエスト

Brandix 回答を見る
Fanatics 回答を見る
Hennes & Mauritz (H&M) 回答を見る
Inditex 回答を見る
Tchibo (part of Maxingvest) 回答を見る
Children's Place

回答無し

MAS Holdings

回答無し

Guess

回答無し

American Eagle Outfitters 回答を見る
ASOS

回答無し

Mountain Khakis

回答無し

PT Sai Apparel Industries

回答無し

Meng Da Footwear

回答無し

Hung Wah

回答無し

JS Leather Collection

回答無し

JAW Garment

回答無し

Primark (part of Associated British Foods) 回答を見る
Primark (part of Associated British Foods) 回答を見る
Bestseller 回答を見る
Bestseller 回答を見る
Bestseller 回答を見る
Chiefway Katunayake (Pvt) Ltd. 回答を見る
Shahi Exports Pvt Ltd 回答を見る
PVH (Phillips-Van Heusen) 回答を見る

タイムライン