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

这页面没有简体中文版本,现以English显示

故事

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.

企业回应

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

没有回应

MAS Holdings

没有回应

Guess

没有回应

American Eagle Outfitters 浏览回应
ASOS

没有回应

Mountain Khakis

没有回应

PT Sai Apparel Industries

没有回应

Meng Da Footwear

没有回应

Hung Wah

没有回应

JS Leather Collection

没有回应

JAW Garment

没有回应

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

时间线