Research in modern day has many undertones and underlining that “dictionary” definitions don't catch. There are at times, unwritten and undeclared objectives of the “Researcher” and his or her financial facilitator. Researches are done for many reasons and objectives by numerous organisations and individuals. Research is undertaken by some, for purely financial gains.
A research on Sri Lanka's apparel sector, with “a deliberate play on words” as the Researcher says, titled “Ethical Codes; Reality and Rhetoric”, was presented to a very selective audience on March 30 at the ICES auditorium. Researcher Dr. Kanchana N. Ruwanpura, is an academic from the University of Southampton. She had received a grant for her research termed a “study” on Sri Lanka's apparel sector, from the “Economic and Social Research Council” which says it is UK's largest organisation for funding research on economic and social issues. A 3-year grant beginning December 2008 had been provided to Dr. Ruwanpura to study “evolving labour practice responses to ethical trading initiatives at sites of production”. The total value of the grant was, 168,081.48 British Sterling Pounds that roughly equals Rs 32 million.
Costly research
This by any means is an unbelievably massive fund for research in Sri Lanka even for a period of three years. It should have thus left no stone unturned in the research, or study as it is called. Yet pathetic it was, the study as it is called, was nowhere close to a high school essay. Though the number of pages in the final report is no substantial criteria to judge the study, it is yet worth to have an idea of the report, in terms of its content pages.
The total report from cover to cover is only 42 pages. Leaving out the two cover pages, the content page, bibliography and the appendix, the Researcher's contribution is only 25 pages, with the Executive Summary and the profile of the Author and her Researchers and acknowledgements taking up three more pages. That's what 32 million rupees of study is worth in terms of reporting, for the apparel sector in Sri Lanka.
The poverty of the study is apparent from the beginning. The methodology part in the report is only a long narrative. It says, the study had 18 months of “field study”, desk based “research” and what the Researcher calls, “ethnographic research” at two factory settings with daily visits. This she explains further, by saying, “This ethnography was supplemented by in-depth interviews with management, numerous stakeholders from labour rights organizations and workers. Additionally, journal recordings by workers for an 18-month period were also maintained to obtain an evolving picture of labour practices in various factory settings.”
Within the report, there is no credible proof of such study. There is absolutely no necessity to keep identities of “management, numerous stakeholders from labour rights organizations” confidential and secret, although with workers, it is accepted. Names of companies, even if names of managers are not given, should be included for any one reading the report to know that those who were interviewed, from whom information had been collected, are those who are in the trade and in the know. Most importantly, organisations and individuals termed as “labour rights organisations” need to be identified. In Sri Lanka anyone, if the Researcher had done some preparatory work, would know labour rights organisations do not necessarily play for the “employee”. They at times play with the State and the employer too, on their political affiliations. Thus it is important to know, who were interviewed to know on which side of the divide they are. But all such identities are carefully packeted and labelled in very general terms as “numerous stakeholders from labour rights organizations” whoever they are.
Next, there is no proof, no details in how the 18-month field study was planned and conducted. To begin with, there are factories within free trade zones (FTZ) and outside them. They cannot be simply generalised to be treated as one entity. Neither the methodology adopted nor the report acknowledges such distinction. There is no mention of the differences in working and living conditions and worker rights in factories within FTZs and outside them.
Errors
With such blatant basic errors, there is no mention of how many factories were visited and geographically where. No mention of how the workers were selected. Mind you, the apparel sector has over 80% young female workers, all in productive age and with heavy social impacts, once they get back to married life. Yet there is no mention of what the gender representation was in the sample selected. There is also no mention of what language was used for interaction, how free the environment was when workers were interviewed, was a basic questionnaire used for such interviews and IF a questionnaire was used, there is no sample of it produced. Imagine how different the research or study would have been, IF all that information was included in the report. I for one would not believe Dr. Ruwanpura missed out on all that by accident, or on ignorance.
Most importantly, “the evolving labour practice responses to ethical trading” needs to be first identified on the basis of good and the bad in relation to ethics in the trade. Dr. Ruwanpura has simply taken the nine points the Sri Lanka Apparels have listed as “Best Practices” for their code of ethics, but has failed to compare any of it with ILO conventions, charters and definitions. She does not in any way concede that Sri Lanka is a signatory and is bound to adhere to ILO Conventions 87 and 98 that makes it mandatory for the State and all companies to accept and allow trade unions of choice, for workers.
The study ignores the importance of “freedom of association”, which is the right of a worker to join any trade union of choice. Without a trade union, there is no possibility of “collective bargaining” and that leaves out the possibility of bargaining for a “Living Wage”, leave alone “safe and hygienic working conditions, harsh and inhuman treatment at workplace, excessive working conditions and discrimination”, all issues taken as conditions required for ethical and good practices in the apparel industry. Therefore, the issue of freedom of association and collective bargaining had to be treated with paramount importance, but had not been.
Lapses
With such major lapses in the study, information provided in the table box (page 08), makes the study more crude and employer bias. The study has met with 25 from the management, while only 90 workers have been interacted with. Its 25-employer representation from over 250 factories in Sri Lanka, as against 90 workers from a workforce of 300,000 direct employees (report says so). When the methodology does not identify the companies selected for manager interviews and then, how and why those 90 workers were selected, it leaves many biases untold. Could it be, the workers were contacted through and recommended by these “managers”? Were they interviewed in the presence of these managers compromising their independence?
The table referred to also says, eight other factories were visited, excluding the two that is mentioned for her ethnographic research. Again, how were they selected and for what? For their employment capacity? For their manufacturing product(s) For their annual turnover? For their geographical location? Why and what for is a big question that is NOT answered in the study. That is also the case with the two factories selected for “ethnographic research”. First, why ONLY two from over 250 factories? Next, what was the criteria for such selection? All these questions that are without answers, makes the “study” very amateurish, to say the least.
Added to all those lapses is the researcher's own pre conceived approach in setting about the study. She starts off by assuming, Sri Lankan apparel manufacturers maintain “ethical” standards in manufacturing. Her phrasing, the nuances in language used, adds more to her assumption. [quote] “Sri Lanka’s efforts to create an industry ethos symptomatic of quality, reliability and social and environmental accountability have been profound (emphasis added). 2002 witnessed a drive to bring the entire apparel industry under the guidance of the Joint Apparel Associations Forum (JAAF). Its purpose is to coordinate, sustain and develop the Sri Lankan apparel industry under the premise of ethical manufacturing.
With all such niceties afforded to the apparel industry, Dr. Ruwanpura says the Labour Department and the BOI since the 1980s, regulate and monitor labour standards. She needs to say how efficiently and impartially the two play that role. She is unaware of all the lapses and heavy corruption there is, in those places, that only satisfies the employer and rarely the employee. She also assumes, [quote] “Sri Lanka has seemingly embraced ethical trade codes with its unacknowledged history of strong labour union politics and legislation aiding this transition.”[unquote – p/13] She again assumes, even before the findings, that there is a “transition” in Sri Lanka that acknowledges “ethical trade codes”.
Code of Ethics
While trying to substantiate her assumption(s), she refrains from discussing “Vendor Code of Ethics” set by “buyers”, the “Model Code of Labour Practices” and Principles campaigned for by the “Clean Cloth Campaign”, an umbrella organisation representing trade unions and NGOs in 15 EU countries, that played a major role in deciding over GSP “Plus” for Sri Lankan apparel exports, and also leaves out digging into the lopsided “Charter on Garments Without Guilt” and their “Best Practices”. Unless these are clearly dissected and adequately compared with the ground reality, there cannot be any findings of accuracy and conclusions derived.
That seems the reason why she says her “Code practice” findings are – (1) employment freely chosen; often upheld (2) Freedom of association and collective bargaining; unlikely to be upheld (3) safe and hygienic working conditions; upheld with nuances (whatever she means) (4) child labour; upheld (5) living wages; not upheld (6) No discrimination practised; upheld often (7) Regular employment; upheld mostly (8) No harsh or inhuman treatment; varies (what does that mean?) (9) Working conditions not excessive; grey area (not black?)
The study shows it has no actual understanding of “ethical conditions” it studied. Therefore it credits the apparel industry for absence of “child labour”. Child labour in Sri Lanka, has never been an issue like in India, Nepal or Bangladesh. Child labour in Sri Lanka was only been talked of with urban middle class families “adopting” domestic aides in 1950's and the 60's. That is hardly an issue now and even child labour from the plantation sector that was used in small time city restaurants, cafes and groceries have gone out of the scanner now. Therefore, “child labour” is wholly irrelevant and is not a condition that should be used for ethical benchmarking of “good practices”, though included.
What is also downplayed in the study are the two most important core conditions that decide all other conditions; Respecting Freedom of Association with the right to Collective Bargaining and a Living Wage. Today the minimum wage in these factories would not allow an average worker to have a “take home pay” beyond Rs 14,000 after all the compulsory overtime, holiday incentives and targets achieved. The minimum monthly wage is still Rs 6,700 with a budgetary adjustment allowance of Rs 1,000 added. The Department of Census and Statistics talks of a 34,000-rupee monthly income for a family of four to have a square meal daily and cover other basic necessities. This leaves a huge gap between the required wage and the paid wage. It is ruthless exploitation, not due to global recession that's stressed in the report. It is exploitation due to workers not been allowed to join a trade union to collectively bargain their wages and improved conditions of work.
What is therefore interesting is Dr. Ruwanpura's total neglect in discussing freedom of association and “trade unions”. She does not even talk about the two work sites (factories) chosen by her for her “ethnographic research” and the other eight factories she claims she visited, ever having trade unions for workers. Did Dr. Ruwanpura ask the 25 Managers she met for the study, whether they allow trade unions in their factories? NO, none of them is noted or referred to for their comments, positive or negative, on freedom of association and collective bargaining.
Freedom of Association
How many of the 39 or 40 “GWG” certified factories in the ‘Garments without Guilt’ campaign which promotes Sri Lanka as the “World’s First Ethical Apparel Sourcing Destination”, allows for “freedom of association and collective bargaining”? Any? It would have been inspiring and enlightening if Dr. Ruwanpura had that number included in her study. Plainly, she has not been into any of those issues seriously and in depth in her study, she says was about evolving labour practice responses to ethical trading initiatives at sites of production. At sites of production, the most important topic is not taken up seriously enough.
Her inadequacy in the subject and her bias was obvious, when she most graciously gives into a request made by an employer to present her report in the absence of one of the major stakeholders – the worker representation – for employer comfort.
That was garnished further with an employer representative brought in for a special sermon at the presentation of her report. She has nevertheless been “street smart” in using the Social Scientists' Association and Dr. Kumari Jayawardne to cover her bias towards employers. That speaks volumes about the credibility of the 32 million-rupee report.
(The writer is a freelance journalist based in Colombo) |
E-mail
