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

這頁面沒有繁體中文版本,現以English顯示

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.

企業回應

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

沒有回應

MAS Holdings

沒有回應

Guess

沒有回應

American Eagle Outfitters 瀏覽回應
ASOS

沒有回應

Mountain Khakis

沒有回應

PT Sai Apparel Industries

沒有回應

Meng Da Footwear

沒有回應

Hung Wah

沒有回應

JS Leather Collection

沒有回應

JAW Garment

沒有回應

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

時間線