Godwin Anyebe
Corporate social responsibility (CSR) has been around for a long time in sectors such as textiles and toys, but is relatively new to Information Communication Technology, ICT, manufacturing companies, in particular the extent to which brands work towards improving conditions of work in their supply chains, and how they go about doing this.
It is on this basis that analysts are among other issues asking questions such as; how do ICT companies actually go about ensuring that workers further down in the supply chain are treated and paid fairly? How motivated are they?
What methods do they use and how successful have they been? Which problems have they encountered? What has been the involvement of the trade unions and the NGO community?
As a matter of fact, CSR has gone mainstream; today, thousands of people are involved in discussing and drawing up codes of conduct, and monitoring and auditing them. More and more universities and business schools offer courses in business ethics. There is near continuous growth in the number of ethical investment funds, in the number of articles in the press that assess companies’ social and environmental performance, and in the number of companies that issue sustainability and corporate responsibility reports.
Check has also revealed that ICT manufacturing is characterized by rapid growth in volume and diversity, and rapid innovation. Report further showed that trade and industry classifications have difficulty keeping pace with the many new products and product lines that are being launched each year.
A further complicating factor is the trend to blend the functions of different established products into one. This happens within the ICT industry (Sony Ericsson sells walkman-phones; Apple’s new iPhone combines telephone, data transfer and multimedia functions) but also between ICT and other industries.
In an attempt to respond to some of the posers raised by analysts earlier, a human rights activist lawyer, Barrister Femi Aborisade told Daily Times that, “a broad range of activist groups should take up the cause of t workers whose rights are infringed upon in the sector. The groups must ensure workers are aware of their rights, help them plead their cause in labour disputes, and place pressure on local governments and local employers to respect the law.
“ Efforts should simultaneously be made to organise the workers so that they can collectively bargain for an improvement of their situation. The activist groups should also take the ICT workers’ cause to the main markets for ICT products, in an attempt to raise awareness among consumers.”
According to him, ICT brand-names have the power to ensure that workers are paid and treated decently. ICT companies have their manufacturing done by subcontractors in “low cost geographies” because it offers clear benefits in terms of lower costs, reduced risks and higher flexibility. However, this model makes companies vulnerable to accusations that the outsourcing model is based on workers being forced to work under sub-standard conditions. Many ICT companies have declared publicly that, individually or collectively, they accept responsibility for ensuring decent working conditions at their suppliers.”
In another development, a public affair commentator, Omale Adanu, said; while it is good for activists to take up some of these responsibilities, what exactly can and should companies accept responsibility for (and who should define this)? When brand-names have thousands of suppliers, how deep in the supply chain can this responsibility reasonably be expected to go? Who should do the monitoring of compliance? Who should verify the monitoring process? Compared to other industries that make intensive use of overseas sourcing (apparel, footwear, sporting goods) ICT manufacturing was remarkably quick in acknowledging the potential downside of the overseas sourcing model. Some accepted responsibility as a matter of course. Others were spurred by critical NGO reports and the memory of major PR disasters in other industries.”
According to him, “Industry awareness and acceptance of at least partial responsibility for ensuring respect for workers’ rights is a step in the right direction for protecting workers. Yet two things must be kept in mind. First, industry initiatives to ensure fair working conditions in the supply chain are a second best solution. Governments of producing countries are, and must always remain, responsible for ensuring that the labour law is being respected and that workers are able to freely organize and defend their rights.
“ Second, the short product life cycles which characterize the industry require highly flexible production. This need for flexibility puts much pressure on suppliers, which in turn put pressure on workers to work long and/or irregular hours, leading to fatigue and increased risk of work-related accidents. Solving this structural problem requires changes in the behaviour of all actors, not just the suppliers.”
Leave a Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.