March 2001 Insights Issue #36

Back to Insights #36

Death by a thousand codes
Is harmonisation possible?

Over two hundred published codes exist covering labour issues, a figure that includes just a fraction of buyers' in-house codes. Forty inspections a month, each paid for by the supplier, complained a Chinese factory-owner recently. Yet just three years ago, most buying companies denied any responsibility for suppliers' labour practice so it is a remarkable step forward. For most developing country suppliers the fact remains that an audit is not cheap. A plethora of codes, moreover, can undermine supplier and consumer confidence in ethical trade.

Stakeholders from the African horticultural sector first expressed concern about the number of codes and their inherent weaknesses in 1999. Extra-national codes only threatened to swamp the regulatory process and to run up additional costs in establishing credibility with northern buyers. The industry was already part of COLEACP - Liaison Committee Europe-Africa-Caribbean-Pacific - a professional association of stakeholders within horticulture and the obvious choice to facilitate code harmonisation.

Would cooperation between African suppliers address cost and credibility issues? The 'harmonised framework' was intended as a benchmark for social, environmental and food safety standards that all African export horticulture could comply with. Several features characterised the framework from the outset. It would:

• include but not be limited to labour and human rights issues

• address the concerns of the main buyers but within an African context

• be an industry-driven initiative, but informed by input from NGOs, researchers and others.

Countries such as Kenya, Zimbabwe and Zambia, already developing their own standards, provided a wealth of experience and information to draw upon. What would the harmonisation framework's basic principles and criteria consist of? How should company performance be measured and reported? African and Caribbean representatives agreed a framework last year to be promoted to European buyers. It includes:

• comprehensive performance targets

• contentious issues, avoided elsewhere, such as freedom of association

• issues such as AIDS and child labour

• a programme for training auditors.

Multi-stakeholder engagement, a feature of some country codes, is not yet central to the harmonised framework. This may change as the framework is implemented, either because of local and international pressure or because such approaches are more efficient. A clear case for business involvement, however, is perhaps more important than ensuring multi-stakeholder participation: in terms of setting performance targets, an industry approach can be more challenging.

Born out of southern business responses to challenges and demands from northern buyers and civil society, the framework's success will depend on its acceptance by those buyers. Although a southern response to northern pressure, the framework does not pose a challenge to the north's ethical agenda. It may be a southern attempt to reform a northern agenda but must still rely on the blessing of the north. An acceptable compromise for southern business perhaps, but what about the consequences for poor people of this approach?

• Are the priority issues for workers being addressed?

• Where is the responsibility to local communities?

• What are the rights of workers beyond the workplace?

Mick Blowfield
NRI
University of Greenwich
Kent ME4 4TB
UK
T: +44 (0) 1634 880088
m.e.blowfield@gre.ac.uk