The world-wide gap between rich and poor is “vast and growing.” That’s according to a recent report by the International Labour Organization. Apparently, the ever-expanding reach of corporations and large companies hasn’t brought shared prosperity along with it.
Yet, if you ask the companies themselves, they will tell you that their companies are doing all the right things: offering good jobs and a route out of poverty for factory workers, investing in the local communities in which they operate, and helping protect and sustain the environment.
There is even a movement in place known as Corporate Social Responsibility by which companies communicate to consumers all the amazing things they are doing.
All of which is great, honestly. Companies should feel the need to do good things for the world, to give something back for all the profit they rake in, and to ensure that those profits aren’t earned by keeping other people down or by exploiting the environment.
The trouble is that there are very few ways for the consumer to identify genuinely responsible corporate behavior versus marketing schemes that emphasize relatively small “good works” as a smokescreen for fundamental irresponsibility.
Through the Ethix Merch “CSR Scorecard” we’ll be digging into some of the claims that companies make about their impact on people and the planet, with the goal of helping our readers separate the wheat from the chaff. This time around we’re looking at Econscious and Unionwear.
As you can see, Econscious has a beautiful, user-friendly website, much of which is dedicated to their corporate social responsibility efforts. Among their laudable claims are an entire line of organic cotton products. They also claim that "social equity" is central to their business practices, which they define as, "paying employees a decent wage, offering a safe and healthy work environment, and encouraging employees to grow in their work and their lives."
So, if you take their word for it, Econscious is taking giant strides to protect the environment and to ensure that employees share in the prosperity resulting from globalized manufacturing.
It all looks extremely impressive, and some of it surely is. But when you dig underneath the surface of the site, despite all of the bells and whistles, there is very little in the way of verifiable assurances that any of the claims about labor practices are accurate. Without such assurances, it is reasonable to assume that their operations may very well be contributing to the “vast and growing” inequality identified by the ILO.
When it comes to certifying their products as organic, Econcious is above board. The reason we can be assured of the veracity of Econscious's claim on this front is their certification by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, backed by the force of law.
With regard to its labor claims, however, Econscious is on much shakier ground. One one of their factories (the one that makes organic caps) is independently certified, in this case by the Worldwide Responsible Apparel Production certification program. However, the problems with WRAP are many, including:
• There’s a large percentage of garment industry executives on the board
• Factory audits are not made available to the public
• Even if you assume that certified factories are legitimately compliant, certification standards don’t require wages above the legal minimum, which in many countries keeps workers in perpetual and abject poverty.
Econscious is also certified by Green America which, like WRAP, does not make specific information about compliance available to the public.
Like Econcscious, Unionwear offers a wide selection of certified organic products.Also like Econscious, Unionwear makes laudable claims about its labor practices.
There is much less information about Corporate Social Responsibility at Unionwear than you’ll find at Econscious, and no affiliation with common CSR projects like "1% for the Planet."
However, Unionwear's claims about labor conditions are backed by much more powerful assurances.
First, Unionwear's factories are all located within the United States. The “Made in USA” tag reminds us that Unionwear is not a subcontractor. If you want to see the plant where the products are made, just hop on a bus or a plane. If you don’t like what you see, you can make your own educated choice about whether or not to support the company.
Secondly, and most importantly, Unionwear's workers are represented by a trade union (UNITE)
The union label tells us that:
1. Experts in the apparel field have researched and collectively bargained for a fair and living wage for the workers,
2. All of the workers have medical insurance and retirement plans provided by their contract, and
3. If workers experience exploitative or dangerous conditions in the factory, they have bargaining power and a powerful megaphone (provided by the union international) through which they can shout these abuses or use a democratic civil legal system to have their claims adjudicated.
Union representation takes labor conditions out of the back rooms, out of the shadows.
Look out for more editions of our "CSR scorecard" soon.
In 1992, Ross Perot foretold of NAFTA causing a grand migration of jobs to Mexico to emit a "giant sucking sound." I started Unionwear the month Perot made that famous prediction and spent the next few years second guessing my career choice.
Free trade is defined as the ability for a buyer and seller to conduct business without government interference. So when the government is the buyer why can't it freely choose who to buy from without incumbent sellers claiming interference with free trade?
Looking for some good economic news? Look no further than US Manufacturing.
Red state laborers will finally make as much as their blue state counterparts next month, when the Federal Minimum Wage is raised to $7.25. Most of the blue states, ours included, had already raised their legal minimums to that level years ago, but a map of the states still slumming it at the Federal Minimum Wage is basically identical to the 2008 map of states won by John McCain, proving once again that the more someone needed a change, the less likely they were to vote for it. What IS the matter with Kansas?
Well, I would like to say it’s been the development of the Sweatfree Purchasing Consortium because it creates a substantial market for decent working conditions as well as an effective tool for workers to enforce their rights. But, the Consortium is not yet far enough along to qualify as “the most important development in the fight against sweatshops.” (Ten cities and states have committed to join so far and with a little bit of luck it will start doing monitoring work within the year).
Before the break up of Ma Bell in 1986, long distance phone calls used to cost a fortune. Then competition like Sprint and MCI drove down the cost of long distance, and by the 1990s long distance calls were less expensive than local calls. But that is still news to my grandmother, who to this day will not talk on the phone to another area code for more than 59 seconds.