On the surface, it would prima facie seem that there is a conspiracy to defame Indian apparel exporters’ image at the international level, why and what is the reality behind the action is something that is really bothering the industry now. Though in the past also reports have been brought out questioning Indian exporters and textile companies on how they are treating their workers, The Asia Floor Wage Alliance (AFWA), a coalition of trade unions and labour rights groups, has released 3 reports in less than a month covering 32 Indian suppliers claiming to be working with H&M, GAP and Walmart, raising many eyebrows… In the last few days, the activities of these NGOs and other so-called labour associations have been increased with many press releases, videos and other material being circulated on the web… In such a situation it became important to give a befitting reply to such reports/associations.
The reports released by AFWA, training serious allegations on apparel exports, pin pointed general as well as company-specific workers’ rights violations. On investigation, many of these exporters profoundly claimed that they never worked with the aforementioned brands and were clueless as to why their names appeared in the reports. Some of the exporters mentioned in these reports are untraceable and no reference could be found even on the net. Till the writing of the story, Ministry of Textiles was also not aware about these reports and even AEPC got to know about these reports from Apparel Online.
The Indian leg of all these 3 reports have been edited by AFWA Coordinator, Anannya Bhattacharjee, and ground work has been done by her team. Recommendations for the ILO at the International Labour Conference, 2016 were formulated by a group of organizations, including the International Asia Floor Wage Alliance, Jobs with Justice (US), National Guest Workers’ Alliance (US), and Society for Labour and Development (India).
Objections to the methodology of creating the reports
In metro cities like Delhi-NCR, a lot of operators don’t even know their factory/company’s name and they identify it with just the addresses, so how can one claim violations without proper identification of the worker and his company, by talking to him outside the premises.
How can one justify or mention a company’s name with serious allegations just by the interview of one or few workers.
• In third report, 4 companies are mentioned on the basis of talking to a single worker, while 9 companies are those where 2 workers were interviewed. Universal Fashions is mentioned in the report but not even a single worker was interviewed. In other countries, substantial numbers of workers in each company were interviewed.
• Third report is based upon research on violations of international labour standards in Walmart garment production factories conducted between December 2012 and May 2016. There is no follow-up on improvement done after first analysis during the period, which is misleading… How can a report come out in end of May if conditions were verified in May only?
• In these reports there are some pictures of residential areas of workers, describing poor living conditions, whereas these have not been provided by the companies. What can the exporters do in this regard…; their responsibility is to pay workers more than minimum wage, which they are doing!
No one from the AFWA approached companies with their findings…; how can you create such a huge report based on just a few views from one party?
In a scenario where there is a dearth of skilled workers, how much is it justified to say that the worker is ready to work even if he is paid less…?
• In fact many measures are being taken to engage them. In Bangalore, companies run buses to bring workers from their villages. They even give better compensation, a message which is posted on the buses to attract workers.
• Asking workers randomly if they like their workplace is ridiculous, except for maybe Google and the like companies… Does any other workplace ever appeal to its employees…; and to be a Google there are many constraints for the apparel industry!
Essentials: Apparel Online approached Anannya Bhattacharjee and SLD on why they published one-sided views in all the three reports, and that why they did not consider the views of the alleged party before publishing such a damaging report. Both did not reply to our emails despite reminder.
General allegations
In reference to working conditions in India, the general (not specific to an individual company) allegations of these reports includes so-called violations of international labour standards like intensive labour, exploitation and abuse, non-payment of wages, sexual harassment and the unsafe working environment, it is claimed that workers were forced to work for 9 to 17 hours per day. The reports also say that some workers were also made to work on Sundays and national holidays ‘in sweltering heat, without an adequate supply of clean drinking water or any breaks’. Workers have been cited saying that at times they were made to work 24 hours at a stretch. “They also complained about being inadequately compensated for overtime work – a practice very common in the garment industry,” the report says.
All companies, to whom Apparel Online contacted, were of the opinion that such reports are concocted by some irresponsible agencies or some vested interest of these NGOs thus tarnishing the image of the Indian garment exporters and India in general. One of the biggest surprises of these reports was that many exporters have never worked with that particular buyer which is mentioned in the report. Gajraj Singh, GM – HR & ADM, Pyoginam denied that it ever worked with GAP, while Sanjay Jain of Opera Clothing, Mumbai too denied ever working with Walmart. Same is the case of Shruti Mangla of Orion Conmerx as she said that her company does not work with H&M and never has!
Commenting on the report, Yudhishthira Kapur, MD, Maharani of India says, “The intention of publishing such reports should be to bring a positive change in workers’ rights and not mere criticism.
We as a company are receptive to views/comments and are always willing to collaborate with other stakeholders to bring a positive change for the industry.” He further added that before publishing such reports, it is important to collaborate with the company’s management so that they can ensure that wrong information is not published and that data is correctly portrayed or at least given the chance to be heard. Taken completely off guard, Vimal Kumar Verma, GM – HR & Compliance, Pearl Global says, “We cannot believe what we have read. The report does not state the true facts at all. It is fictitious, false and baseless. The company denies all allegations against it strongly and facts can be verified from our documented records.”
One of the allegations made is that above mentioned Indian exporters do not allow pregnant women (in case of contractual labour) to work. “Our management would appreciate if the report publisher may provide us with evidence where a pregnant woman has been specifically denied employment in our organization,” said Gajraj, while other companies in their replies claimed strongly that they do not debar pregnant women from taking employment. Sanjiv Chopra, Vice President – Operations, Home Textiles, GHCL, Vapi reacting sharply on the report says, “GHCL is a multi-product company having an annual turnover of US $ 385 million (Rs. 2,500 crore) and it has been carrying out many CSR activities with an annual budget of around US $ 2.41 million (Rs. 16 crore). We are therefore surprised at the reference to GHCL in the report.” Some companies like Orient Craft were so disgusted with the report that they felt it was useless to respond and give importance to such baseless and false allegations!
S. Alagesan, VP-QA/ Sustainability/CSR, Eastman Exports Global Clothing is extremely annoyed with the report and feels that some action needs to be taken on an industry level. “If any of our customers or organizations wants to initiate legal proceedings against this report in their respective countries, we are willing to provide any required evidence or any legal assistance necessary.
And we also reserve our right to legally proceed against this report if our business interests are affected. We invite people from Asia Floor Wages/Society for Labour Development or any concerned organization to visit our facilities to come and verify facts. We emphasize that no one from the organization’s workers voice from the supply chain, “nor any of their representatives or affiliates mentioned in the report, have ever visited any of our production facilities, nor they have at any point of time expressed any desire to talk to us, or visited us, or interacted with us in anyway. They have used our name but a basic fundamental right to react before the publication, has not been provided to us.”
Indian companies covered by these reports
Allegations made by these reports are claimed to be based on the interviews of workers of factories named in the reports. The first report of this series, ‘Precarious Work in the H&M Global Value Chain’ named 4 Indian exporters – Shahi Exports (workers interviewed – 19); Maharani of India (14); Jak Group (7); and Orion Conmerx (10). It also covered 12 companies of Cambodia and interacted with about 201 workers. The second report ‘Precarious Work in the Gap Global Value Chain’ named 8 companies from Delhi-NCR, including companies like Orient Craft and Pearl Global. It also covered 4 companies of Indonesia with their 100 workers interviewed. The third report, ‘Precarious Work in the Walmart Global Value Chain’ included Bangladesh (46 companies), Cambodia (14 companies) and 24 Indian companies – including Tirupur-based Eastman Exports, and 20 companies from Vapi including GHCL and Opera Clothing.
Some serious and specific allegations on companies by the reports and their reply to Apparel Online on the said issues…
Claim: “At Pearl Global’s Udyog Vihar (Plot No. 446, Phase 5) unit, piece-rate workers were being paid @ Rs. 1.20, lower than the prevailing rate of Rs. 1.50 per collar. Workers, who refused to work at a lower rate, were met with a threat of giving away the work entirely to a subcontractor.”
Response: This is absolutely baseless and incorrect… Our incentives are based on SAM of the garments and are a very scientific, ethical and fair way of worker compensation. As we have to compete with the market rate, we cannot give a lesser rate to our workers. If we pay less than the market rate, then why will a worker work for us? The rate which we pay to a worker is as per the similar industry practice.
Claim: “In Pyoginam’s unit Nos. 268 and 262, workers and union organizers explained that high turnover prevents workers from forming a union. Within these production units, no worker is allowed to hold continuous employment for more than a year. Workers are terminated for a period of one month before being re-hired. The constant threat of termination creates a significant barrier to organizing trade unions. Another tactic to prevent workers from interacting with union leaders or participating in union activities include preventing workers from engaging with anyone outside the factory during breaks in the work day…?”
Response: The report is baseless. We employ permanent workers through reputed contractors. All legal and social obligations are ensured for each and every worker like – minimum wages, social benefits, good working conditions, health and safety. Workers are at liberty to form any association or union. We have Worker’s Committee duly elected by workers for the safe guard of their interest and its meetings are being held regularly. Workers are at their liberty to seek employment or to leave as and when they feel so. However, we never terminate the employment. We do not provide any kind of living-accommodation to the workers so there is no question that they are prevented from contacting or interacting with any union members. They are also free to go outside during lunch-breaks or at any time during working hours with permission. Therefore, we strongly deny the allegations published against us. In addition to this, we provide subsidized food and RO drinking water to all of our employees including contractors.
Claim: “In Eastman Exports, a female worker reported being verbally abused and sexually harassed for allegedly spoiling a piece of fabric. She was then forcefully terminated under false pretence by the supervisor who perpetrated the abuse. At the time of termination, she was not paid the wages she was due on the grounds that she had damaged the fabric purposely. When she returned to seek the wages she had been denied, she was given only partial payment. Rupees 600 had been illegally deducted from her wages. Women forced to work overtime, but in late hours into the night, being vulnerable to sexual harassment and violence as they return home through poorly lit and unsafe streets.”
Response: Allegations against us in the report are false, baseless and borders irresponsibility. No such event mentioned in the report has ever taken place in any of our manufacturing facilities and no one has approached us with even a simplest of complaints of such serious nature. It is clear that to sensationalize the story, the report has used our name with zero evidence. Our name is completely unnecessary in this report and taken out of context, just to a make a report on labour exploitation. Contents in the reports are presumptions and do not represent facts. We have several levels of worker grievance redressal systems in place. At every level of the factory, workers are involved. There are several workers involved in monitoring committees. Moreover, this committee has the participation of a prominent NGO from this region. NGOs visit all our factories on regular basis and interact with workers and participate in addressing grievances.
Claim: “Workers in Maharani of India reported that they receive single rather than double overtime payment – despite being routinely required to work up to 17 hours a day, or 8 overtime hours a day…”
Response: Overtime is being compensated at legally calculated double rates. Generally, overtime is of maximum 2 hours per day. In the peak season, due to Supply Chain or raw material breakdown; in rare cases, we may need to put in some extra hours but the compensation is always paid in double, further stating that all workers are covered under all legal Government-specified statutory benefits.
Claim: “Manesar unit of Tets N Rai (Sector 4, Plot No. 42), which has a total workforce of 700, is contracted from Balaji Enterprises, a contractor operating from Gurgaon. Balaji ensures that no worker is employed for a continuous period of five years, to avoid payment of gratuity. Instead contracts are terminated upon reaching four years and then renewed, making workers to re-join from a new ‘start date’. Loss of seniority impacts workers’ right to receive social security benefits.”
Response: The company informed Apparel Online that as top level management is travelling abroad, it was unable to reply but assured an answer on their arrival… They also claimed that they were unaware of any such report.
Essentials: Initiated in 2005, Asia Floor Wage Alliance (AFWA) has members in 13 countries and in India it is associated with 14 unions/NGOs like GAWU (Garment and Allied Workers’ Union), GATWU (Garment and Textile Workers Union), KGWU (Karnataka Garment Workers Union), GLU (Garment Labourers Union) and GAFWU (Garment and Fashion Workers’ Union…
Expectations from AEPC and MoT
In its written reply Pearl Global suggests that the AEPC or Ministry of Textiles should very strongly take up the matter against irresponsible media and NGOs and organizations for tarnishing India’s image along with the reputation of garment export industry. Strong action should be taken against such types of agencies. “Appropriate level of examination of such reports may be taken up by the AEPC or MoT in consultation with the Government and correct facts may be brought to the notice of all concerned agencies, before they are published…,” says the management of Pyoginam, while Maharani of India says that AEPC or MoT should discredit unverified reports that have been made without involving the management, of a particular company. N Chandran, CMD, Eastman Exports also suggested forming a committee of stakeholders from the industry and including people from Labour Ministry to investigate the source of such reports and bring out counter reporters that are credible and verified.
Brands concerned
Brands also approached their Indian suppliers on the report, worried about the authenticity and all of them claim to have satisfied their buyers. In one such case, H&M approached Maharani of India and personally checked on the different allegations made on the report. “Our customers are always partnering us to improve our compliance and make us a more sustainable supplier. The percentage of the contract workers is negligible as compared to the total strength of the Group. Besides H&M, who conducts their own audits, we also have third-party audits conducted by SGS for retailers and trading houses like NEXT, Carrefour, Arcadia, Primark, Li & Fung,” said Kapur.
Thérèse Sundberg, an H&M official says, “We are dedicated to contribute to positive long-term development for the people working in the textile industry in our sourcing markets. The issues addressed in the report are industry-wide problems. They are often difficult to address as an individual company and we firmly believe that collaboration is key.” He also informed that the H&M has joined forces with International Labour Organization, Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency, and other global and local trade unions to work in this direction.
A Walmart spokesperson says the company uses “collaborative approaches to improving working conditions and is working with the International Labor Organization’s Better Factories Cambodia Program” to make sure that suppliers follow its set of standards.
GAP too reacted and issued a statement, “When we encounter an issue or violation of our code of vendor conduct – whether through our monitoring programme or when an external group brings an issue to our attention – our approach is to drive improvements in a timely manner, often in coordination with NGOs or other civil society organizations.”
