Sign up to receive the Vogue Business newsletter for the latest luxury news and insights, plus exclusive membership discounts. To become a Vogue Business Member and receive the Sustainability Edit newsletter, click here.
In Cambodia, a trade union representative says they were offered a monthly salary of US $600 — nearly triple the local minimum wage for garment workers — as a bribe to stop organising in their factory. In Sri Lanka, trade union leaders say they were beaten up in a bid to stop the recruitment of workers.
According to a new report by the Business & Human Rights Resource Centre (BHRRC), published today, these are the conditions under which many independent trade unions are operating, and they are a threat to workers’ right to freedom of association, or the right for people to collectively discuss or defend common interests.
The report, titled ‘Just For Show’, explores how freedom of association is being undermined in six key garment-producing countries: Bangladesh, Cambodia, India, Indonesia, Pakistan and Sri Lanka. It paints a bleak picture of the trade union landscape in these countries, through interviews with trade union leaders, activists and labour rights advocates, as well as a survey of labour rights NGOs, factory-level trade unions, national trade union federations and worker organisations. The report is intended as a rallying cry for brands and their investors to step up and support workers’ freedom of association.
“Freedom of association is the enabling right that underpins all other progress towards better terms and conditions,” says Natalie Swan, labour rights programme manager at the BHRRC. “If freedom of association is set up correctly — if you build the muscle of social dialogue with workers — then stakeholders will be familiar with sitting down together and improving things. Only through building strong trade unions that represent members and have a mandate to work on their behalf, can you collectively bargain to improve all other terms and conditions in the workplace.”
It’s not only the BHRRC warning about the state of freedom of association. Earlier this month, the International Trade Union Confederation’s 11th annual Global Rights Index highlighted an increase in violations against freedom of association. Its report found that 90 per cent of countries violated the right to strike, while 80 per cent denied workers the right to collective bargaining. Forty-nine per cent of countries arbitrarily arrested or detained trade union members, up 3 per cent on 2023’s figure. Of the 151 countries surveyed, 65 infringed the right to free speech and freedom of assembly — a number that has more than doubled since 2014, when the index began.
Minimum wage protests in Bangladesh late last year resulted in the deaths of at least four garment workers, with hundreds more hospitalised. Poverty wages, long hours and uncompensated overtime, workplace harassment and gender-based violence are all reported in fashion supply chains across key sourcing countries such as Myanmar, the Philippines, China and Bangladesh.
The time is ripe for change. With EU legislation taking aim at due diligence and broader supply chain transformation, brands are under pressure to ensure their supply chains are in order, and suppliers are ready — and willing — to work with them to push the needle on change. “We are at a critical moment for the fashion industry,” says Swan. “Wealth and power along supply chains have never been more uneven. The global cost of living crisis is exacerbating the issues already there, both for workers and for companies’ profit margins. Our research shows that workers are paying the price, which isn’t right. A just transition can only happen through meaningful dialogue, which requires freedom of association.”
The right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association, along with the right to form and join trade unions, are established in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and further enshrined as International Labour Organisation (ILO) core conventions. They are also cemented in many brands’ policy commitments and codes of conduct. The question is: why aren’t these rights being upheld?
Alternative structures undermine independent trade unions
Through its research, the BHRRC found that “weak and bogus” representative structures are widespread in the South and Southeast Asian garment sector. These structures — including workers’ committees and so-called “yellow unions” — are often privileged, while independent trade unions are punished. Management may incentivise workers to operate within the weak representative structures, giving these groups offices on site and allowing them to recruit during working hours.
By contrast, they may refuse to negotiate with independent trade unions and intimidate representatives who attempt to recruit during working hours. Of those surveyed, 33 per cent say “separation of union members from their colleagues” is used as a union-busting tactic where they are employed. Interviewees added that union members are often demoted or moved to other lines of production.
The management-backed alternative structures undermine trade unions and limit their ability to achieve improvements for workers, creating a “vicious cycle” whereby unions become less effective over time, which is why the BHRRC is now spotlighting how brand and supplier support for alternative structures becomes a form of union-busting.
The BHRRC has gathered multiple examples of alternative structures undermining workers’ interests. In Cambodia, yellow unions signed off on the dismissal of workers during the pandemic. In Sri Lanka, a workers’ committee agreed to underpay workers for overtime, allowing the company to recoup lost revenues from two days of national holidays, which workers were entitled to take as leave.
Independent trade unions waste time and resources competing with alternative structures and fighting against union-busting. Some — including a union interviewed by the BHRRC in Sri Lanka — are spending considerable resources to engage with local police and authorities outside of the factory walls to explain the dynamics they are up against, and counter the lack of direct communication they have with factory management.
Over time, this leaves them less able to represent workers at the factory level, or engage with brands and suppliers on the macro level, says Kate Jelly, labour rights researcher at the BHRRC. “The current status quo of trade unions not being allowed to organise and form in workplaces — marginalising their role — is not acceptable and definitely not useful to either workers or employers.”
What can brands and their investors do?
It is no secret that fashion brands often squeeze their suppliers’ margins, inducing a race to the bottom that makes it difficult for garment workers to thrive because their rights and protections are on the line when it comes to budget cuts. According to Swan, brands have significant leverage to change this, which they could then use to support independent trade unions.
BHRRC’s checklist for brands includes the following:
- Strengthen supply chain transformation through workers’ freedom of association.
- Develop robust practices and put them into force.
- Negotiate Global Framework Agreements and binding agreements for supply chains.
- The starting point for any human rights due diligence must be the right to freedom of association and meaningful engagement with workers along supply chains.
- Promote successful dialogue for a just transition.
Likewise, the checklist for brands’ investors:
- Integrate freedom of association as a key criterion in the assessment of brands’ material risks in transforming the supply chain landscape.
- Set clear and time-bound expectations for businesses.
- Promote successful dialogue for a just transition.
If this all sounds complicated, it doesn’t need to be, says Swan. “Trade unions are not an external force, they are made up of workers. This is simply about colleagues coming together within their workplace to make conditions that are not just decent but thrive-able.”
Workers are often best placed to advise on how workplaces can be improved, she points out. They work in them every day. “Audits, surveys and worker voice apps are fine, but these are one-way conversations. You get so much more from meaningful dialogue. Brands just need to listen to their workers and give them a seat at the table.”
Ultimately, shifting towards meaningful stakeholder dialogue means upending a top-down system that has allowed brands to overlook and undermine workers’ rights. Looking the other way is no longer an option, the BHRRC said. “Brand neutrality on this issue is not acceptable,” insists Swan. “To support freedom of association, you have to be affirmative, which means supporting genuine freedom of association and independent trade unions.”
Comments, questions or feedback? Email us at feedback@voguebusiness.com.
