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

This page is not available in Burmese and is being displayed in English

Story

13 Jun 2024

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.

Company Responses

adidas View Response
Brandix View Response
Fanatics View Response
Hennes & Mauritz (H&M) View Response
J.Crew View Response
Inditex View Response
Tchibo (part of Maxingvest) View Response
Children's Place

No Response

MAS Holdings

No Response

Guess

No Response

American Eagle Outfitters View Response
ASOS

No Response

Mountain Khakis

No Response

PT Sai Apparel Industries

No Response

Meng Da Footwear

No Response

Hung Wah

No Response

JS Leather Collection

No Response

JAW Garment

No Response

Primark (part of Associated British Foods) View Response
Primark (part of Associated British Foods) View Response
Bestseller View Response
Bestseller View Response
Bestseller View Response
Chiefway Katunayake (Pvt) Ltd. View Response
Shahi Exports Pvt Ltd View Response
PVH (Phillips-Van Heusen) View Response

Timeline