Can Corporate Codes of Conduct Promote Labor Standards?
Evidence from the Thai Footwear and Apparel Industries

Corporate codes of conduct do not guarantee workers' rights to form unions. Instead, as in the case of Reebok, they provide broad statements such as "a commitment to the rights of employees to establish and join organizations of their own choosing." [1] However, in the case of the Par Garment Company, workers who were active in organizing unions were dismissed. Years later, they are still seeking compensation in court.

Workers protest the closure of the Piyavat plant without compensation.

In 1995, Woogpaitoon closed down Piyavat, the only footwear factory in Thailand that had a one. Workers in the Wongpaitoon Footwear Company avoid talking about the union. Workers who were transferred from Piyavat manufacturing before its closure deny any involvement in the Piyavat workers union.

Codes of conduct allow transnational corporations to achieve some legitimacy through non-government organizations. Reebok claims that they recruit labor activists, in their human rights department. In fact in 1998, only one of the human rights coordinators in Reebok's Asian offices has a labor activist background The rest are recruited from management positions within Reebok. The human rights activities of Reebok, Nike and the other transnational corporation focus on gaining credibility in the marketplace not on protecting the rights of the production workers. This is suggested by the distribution of Reebok Human Rights Awards. Sixteen of the 50 awards presented between 1992 and 1998 went to individuals from the largest Reebok market, the United States. People in Latin America and Mexico received 11 of the awards. Thus, more than half of the awards went to the Americas. Eight awards went to Africa; seven to Asia; and two to Europe.

Nike is world-famous for its spending on advertising. Nike spends US$650 million (22.750 billion baht) each year on advertising. [2] If only a small fraction of this had been used for workers, the lives of tens of thousands of workers would be greatly improved. US$ 650 million would enable 11,000 workers to buy a simple house or enable three million workers to buy a television. [3] Workers spend 30 or more years working to be able to purchase a house.

Footnotes:

1. Reebok Code of Conduct, mimeograph, February 1998.
2. Charles Kernaghan, "Behind the Label: 'Made in China'," Washington, D.C.: National Labor Committee, March 1998.
3. A simple house can be constructed for 200,000 baht. The official poverty line in Thailand is 12,764 baht per person per year in urban areas and 8,336 in rural areas. Somsak Samakitham, "Khwam Yak Jon Nai Klum Kammakon," [Poverty Among Workers], Narong Phetprasert, ed., Khon Jon Thai, [The Thai Poor], Bangkok: Political Economy Study Centre, Chulalongkorn University, 1998, 156, citing National Economic and Social Development Office, "Sen Khwam Yak Jon Lae Kan Chai Prayote," [The Poverty Line and How to Use it], Newsletter, 2: 2, (March 1998), 10.
   

Top