Introduction
As noted in the preceding chapter, there are some key issues faced by workers on banana plantations, the m ost critical being the danger o f handling agro-chemicals and the employment instability that comes from working in a globalised industry. The chapter explores these issues w ithin the context o f the relevant principles o f the ETI Base Code and the SA8000 Standard, and inferences are made regarding the labour conditions on banana farms in light o f these voluntary initiatives. The chapter explores the reality o f employment in the banana sector relative to the principles noted in both codes, focusing on health and safety, job security, a living wage, discrimination, and freedom o f association. The chapter also reviews a more recently established form o f governance in the banana production chain, International Framework Agreem ents (IFAs). The issues associated with working on banana farms are complex and the introduction o f labour codes o f conduct in the sector has been variable (Frundt 2004, Kasteele and Stichele 2005). In an agricultural sector like banana farming, the capitalist model o f production dominates (Raynolds 1994). The process o f capital accumulation continually reshapes the industrial landscape; it changes and creates new ways o f doing things (Nichols 1997). This is certainly evident in the banana industry where companies have sought competitive advantage. Traditionally, this has meant improving production yields and cutting costs, usually labour costs. But more recently, it has included the developm ent o f social responsibility credentials (Nicholls 2005).
The theories o f comparative advantage, drawn from the doctrines o f Adam Smith and David Ricardo, highlight the need for countries to develop an export trade where they have an advantage in the production process (Krugman and Obstfeld 1997). Banana farming in Latin America largely relies on production economies o f scale and low labour costs to maintain its comparative advantage in the export
trade (M yers 2004). For the major banana companies to m aintain this competitive position with their key customers (chiefly the supermarkets) they m ust continue to keep prices low, which invariably means cutting the cost o f production and labour. This raises the question o f whether social responsibility policies, which include codes o f conduct, are the most effective means o f ensuring acceptable labour conditions in global supply chains and/or a realistic form o f protection for w orkers’ rights. A num ber o f questions are prompted by this query, such as: (i) where do codes fit in the production process for bananas, (ii) are they a response to the needs o f workers, (iii) are workers aware o f the various codes, (iv) does the success o f these voluntary initiatives depend on w orkers’ awareness and acceptance, and finally (v) are such voluntary measures valued by workers, in that they actually make a difference to the labour conditions on banana plantations. One o f the m ain aims o f the chapter is to wrestle with these questions and attempt to determine the perm eability and uncertainty that surround these forms o f control in global supply chains, and to try and identify how codes benefit workers.
To ensure understanding o f the voluntary labour initiatives which are currently operating in the banana chain, a summary is provided o f the codes and standards subscribed to by both ends o f the global banana supply chain - supermarkets and producers. This is followed by a detailed analysis o f how these are viewed and understood by workers; the intended beneficiaries o f voluntary labour regulation. Chiefly, the testim ony o f workers is the basis o f the discussion in the chapter and these accounts are largely organised to show how the principles o f codes operate in practice. The intention here is to review the social responsibility commitments and level o f com pliance to codes by the varying companies engaged in the global banana supply chain and to show the difficulties associated with this form o f labour regulation. By exploring the policy and practice o f codes in this way, a better understanding m ay be gained o f how the m ajor TNCs and independent producers involved in banana farming embrace and respond to other social actors exerting control in the chain. Also, by following this approach it m ay be possible to show whether the ways producers adopt codes and other labour agreements,
makes a difference to workers. In this regard, it is hoped the chapter will contribute to the developing theory o f self-regulation in the globalised market.
8.1 Codes o f Conduct
As highlighted in Chapter Four, codes and other standards introduced in global supply chains are aimed at both securing and maintaining certain levels o f environmental and social conditions in the chain. There are a number o f standards subscribed to by companies engaged in food production, wholesale and retail, some o f w hich are aimed at ensuring food hygiene standards in order to comply with EU directives on health and safety, and the requirements o f due
diligence in the chain, such as EurepGAP. EurepGAP is a partnership organisation (retailers and agricultural producers) that has developed an agreed set o f food quality and safety standards to certify each step in the production chain, providing com plete traceability from field to the plate (EurepGAP 2006). The EurepGAP organisation has gradually extended its geographical reach and changed its nam e to GLOBALGAP in September 2007 (GLOBALGAP 2007). W hilst other initiatives have been developed by individual companies as a means o f presenting a public statem ent that shows the company is committed to ensuring
" ) A
the products it sells are m ade in reasonable working conditions. Often referred to as ‘Com pany Codes o f C onduct’, these initiatives increasingly cover labour standards for overseas suppliers (Hale and Shaw 2001). In the UK food retailing sector, examples o f such propriety standards include Tesco’s ‘N ature’s C hoice’, Sainsbury’s ‘Special S elect’ and W aitrose’s ‘Responsible Sourcing C ode’ (Interviews: Retail Technical M anager ST@T2, April 2005; Retail Buyer GB@T1, April 2005; Retail Technical M anager DC@T5, June 2005). However, codes examined in this research study are not enshrined in law and the companies
'4 This is a term that is rarely defined and like the term ‘acceptable’, which is often used to describe working conditions in debates on social responsibility, it has a different meaning and interpretation dependent on which group o f social actors in the global supply chain is consulted (Hale and Shaw 2001).
(supermarkets and producers) involved in the global banana supply chain differ in their com mitment to the various initiatives that are being prom oted in the sector.
8.1.1 Supermarket Retailers
Apart from the m any propriety standards in the retail sector, m any o f the UK supermarket groups have insisted their supplier-base comply with more established voluntary labour initiatives applicable to global supply chains. Chiefly, these are the ETI Base Code and the SA8000 Standard, both o f which include standards applicable in the production operation o f the supply chain. The growing m em bership o f the Ethical Trade Initiative during the last few years has meant that the ETI Base Code has become one o f the key initiatives that producers and suppliers to the UK market are obliged to comply with. Three o f the top four superm arket retailers in the U K are members o f the ETI and as such, have com m itted to ensuring that the Base Code is implemented in all the supply chains that they source product from. A summary o f the voluntary initiatives committed to by U K superm arkets is detailed below.
Table 8.1 Voluntary initiatives subscribed to by UK supermarkets (as of 30.06.07)
Retailers Codes and Standards
Tesco ■ ETI Base Code
• SEDEX* - labour standards governance system
ASDA ■ ETI Base Code
■ SEDEX
Sainsbury’s ■ ETI Base Code
■ SEDEX
Morrison - SEDEX
Waitrose • SEDEX
The Co-operative Group ■ ETI Base Code ■ SEDEX
N o t e s : * S E D E X is a supplier ethical data exch ange w eb-b ased system that enablers producers to maintain data on labour standards at their production sites, w h ich is then made available to trading partners, i.e. retailers (S E D E X 2 0 0 5 ). The c h ie f aim o f the system is to make it easier for producers to share inform ation on labour standards with their custom ers (retailers and w h olesalers) (S E D E X 2 0 0 5 ).
Source: Supermarket Company Annual Reports 2006, Retailer Interviews 2006, SEDEX 2007 Largely, the m ajor supermarket groups in the UK have made similar commitments to voluntary initiatives regarding labour conditions in global supply chains. The key anomaly is the supermarket group Morrisons, which has shown little interest in becom ing a member o f the ETI and which, like Somerfield Stores Ltd., a m em ber o f the ETI until last year, has stated a preference to abide by in- house ethical standards (M athiason 2006; Interview ETI Representative DD@OG2, June 2006). Somerfield is the fifth-biggest supermarket group in the UK, and was a founding ETI member, but it made the announcement not to renew its ETI mem bership in M ay 2006. W hilst stating a commitment to incorporate the accepted codes o f practice across their business, the retailer also stated matters o f ethical trade were best m anaged in-house (M athiason 2006). Waitrose, one o f the smaller supermarket groups and part o f the John Lewis Partnership, has also displayed misgivings over the introduction o f additional external standards o f this nature. A fter m uch deliberation, W aitrose decided not to jo in the ETI, based on the reasoning that ‘responsible sourcing’ was an inherent part o f the organisation’s constitution; the ‘ethical philosophy’ which guided the Partnership (Interview Retail C SR Executive, April 2005). In this respect, the ETI Base Code was viewed as “sim ply a duplication o f what is already being done in the business”, but in recognition o f the advantages o f sharing knowledge o f labour standards in the supply chains o f their suppliers/producers, W aitrose became a founding m em ber o f SEDEX (Interview Retail CSR Executive, April 2005).
8.1.2 Banana Producers
As regards producers, one o f their greatest priorities in the past has been quality and due diligence, resulting in the introduction o f EurepGAP and ISO standards in their supply chains. Due to the pressure o f civil society groups, and possibly more influential, the dem ands o f their customers (supermarkets/wholesalers), producers have also em braced labour initiatives such as the ETI Base Code and the SA8000 Standard over the last few years (Interviews: Producer CSR Manager RC@P2, February 2006; Producer Technical M anager RT@ P1, March 2006;