Ballinger | 2/4/2010

Don't apologize, Brian! That is a great in-a-nutshell statement on the state of play w/ foreign factories & rich-country brands. Can you make it a haiku?

Bent over machines
People say they are lucky
(blankety blank blank)

Brian Colvin | 2/1/2010

I'm sorry, it's very frustrating. We point out that the workers make less than 1% of the retail price per pair, and how that is not enough for the people to have a decent life, and the reply is "well it's a business that needs to make a profit and keep the shareholders happy".

What kind of reply do you expect from that?

As usual, the rich get richer, at the expense of the poor, who are getting poorer.

Brian Colvin | 2/1/2010

MBA Type, I do understand that there is a business side to Timberland, and they need to be profitable in order to exist. However there is no way you will be able to convince me that arbitrarily raising wages will make the company unprofitable. When I go to the store and see a pair of Timberland boots for 80 dollars, on up to 130 dollars, then the people who make them earn a couple of dollars per day (which works out to how much per pair?), that is a huge difference. Also, it's not like I'm bombarded with advertising. Sure, the prices I see are not what Timberland receives, however I know we are also not talking about 5 to 10 dollars per pair. I don't think anyone has mentioned paying the workers 20 US dollars an hour. I think giving the workers precisely what is needed for their own maintenance is simply cruel. Especially when someone says that it is because the shareholders need to be kept happy.
As for Timberland's stock being undervalued, that is a whole different can of worms. Historically, Stocks were mostly all undervalued until the 1980's when stock brokers realized it, and then started heavily shifting stocks, and as large groups jumped on the trend, stocks shot through the roof, becoming overvalued. In other words, they create bubbles, and it happens almost daily on Wall Street. Business decisions should never be based upon stock performance due to this. However they are. So now there is a choice, the choice between the worker who has no power, and the shareholder who has some power, or a lot of power depending upon the amount of shares owned. Just because the worker has little or no laws to protect them, and the shareholder wants better results RIGHT NOW, does not mean that Timberland needs to take advantage of people who will work for close to slave wages just because they can.

Yes, it is a "green wash", just talking about doing the right thing does not equal doing it. Placing profits over people, no matter how honest and transparent the answers, is wrong.

Ballinger | 1/24/2010

MBA Type says"minimum wage in Indonesia changed as result of a national regulatory decision." Well, of course, but what DROVE those decisions - year after year - to bump up the min wage by 25 - 35%? Indonesia was getting hammered in the global press because we attached the Nike brand to Indonesia's egregiously low wage. This story goes nowhere unless there were dozens of worker protests involving tens of thousands of workers (there were); the story goes nowhere unless there were literally hundreds of protests in front of FootLocker stores involving thousands of "consuming country" citizens (there were) and the wage wouldn't have moved unless American diplomats didn't cajole the dictatorship, due to (albeit weak) worker rights language in our U.S. trade law. I suggest that anyone interested read Harrison and Scorse in the current issue of the respected journal, American Economic Review: "Multinationals and Anti-Sweatshop Activism" - it is 100% about the foregoing factors which drove real change in Indonesia.

Well, "good" you might say, "go out and replicate this strategy." Not so easy... There were over 90,000 Nike contract-workers who struck at a dozen Korean- and Taiwanese-run factories in Vietnam 2006-7 but there was almost zero international attention. The wheels came off the global anti-sweatshop movement precisely because of the CSR strategy deployed by Nike and TBL: seduce those do-gooders into fatuous, mind-numbing "sustainabilty" discussions.

Regarding the New Balance issue, I could make a very strong case that this company began to soar in the mid-90s precisely because of the substantial-vertical-integration strategy pursued by Jim Davis. (I am quite disappointed that no MBA prof has written this up - nothing in the case-study literature or journals...)

Neither MBA Type nor the TBL respondents posting here have an activist's mind-set/skill set --"...they just don’t feel that letter writing is going to do any good (nor do I)." The "letter-writing" is just one component of a multi-pronged approach which is designed to level the playing field somewhat. Another part of it is massive survey work (described in one of my 10/15 posts) and It is clear that a new architecture of rights must be erected, beginning with a no-nonsense survey of current practices.

Each U.S. embassy’s labor attaché or labor reporting officer should compile the following facts: Has country X signed International Labor Organization Convention 81 (Labor Inspection)? If so, when is the last time a report was sent to Geneva? How many labor inspectors? How many factory inspections last year? Number of violations found. Number of prosecutions started. Number of back pay awards (maybe several more questions - not too many!).

All of the inspection/enforcement statistics should be folded-into a matrix maintained by an NGO or university research center working under a several-year grant from the State Department’s Bureau of Human Rights, Democracy and Labor. Included alongside the raw numbers may be wiki-style narratives on issues such as the freedom for NGOs operating in the labor sector, a summary-form labor history, recent strikes, opinions on the adequacy of the minimum wage, academic papers, contact information for unions and activist groups. Such a format will allow for the beginning of a global dialogue about key issues.

Country-by-country comparisons make sense, especially where we have country-of-origin labels required in clothes & shoes; the goal is not to demonize ("don't buy anything made in this-or-that country") but, rather, to DIFFERENTIATE ("see what Bulgaria's done on enforcement...what experience has the Dominican Republic had in hiring lawyers as labor inspectors...how Columbia addressed the problem of employers skipping out on severance-pay").

I am looking forward to getting some feedback on these proposed strategies - we just got lucky with the focus on Indonesia fifteen years ago. In many ways, it is a tougher environment today.

MBA Type | 1/23/2010

Ballinger, to your points:

First, the increase in the minimum wage in Indonesia changed as result of a national regulatory decision. That’s fantastic, it keeps the level of competition even throughout the industry and prevents disproportionate first-mover disadvantages. Reading some of the TBL responses it seems clear that they would not only support such a move but are considering how best to influence the process; they just don’t feel that letter writing is going to do any good (nor do I). Never did I suggest that this brand would run for the hills if labor costs go up, rather my point is that they have to consider the market results of their action.

To the second point- “NB does it, so why not TBL?” New Balance (along with say, Levi Strauss) has the luxury of being a privately held brand that has institutionalized the philosophy of its founders. In a publicly held company (such as Timberland), a move that deliberately and aggressively adds cost without comparable moves in the rest of the industry will have a cost in share value. Fidelity, Royce, American Funds and a number of others make up the majority of the externally held shares in the company- like it or not, these guys are not "sustainable" investors like Generation or Calvert group and despite Jeff Swartz and other insiders holding 2/3 of the shares, the market cap of the company will suffer. You might say “so what? They will still make a profit” but it’s not that simple. Share price can have far-reaching impact on hedging strategies, cost of capital and the public perception of the “value” of a company’s brand (not everyone buys TBL because of its stance on sustainable business). These impacts in turn affect the firm’s ability to make further bold actions… In a perfect world TBL, assuming that it stays public, would have a shareholder mix that is 100% composed of sustainability-minded investors. Fact is that they don’t and arguably, their shares are already undervalued as a result.

In my opinion the “right” answer is in these pages- a collection of concerned brands getting together and pushing for regulatory change and presenting suggestions for enforcement. If they can pull it off it will take an alignment of the brands, the regulators and the activists- isn’t that game-changing? Just saying “raise wages” isn’t constructive- it sounds simple but only works on a systemic basis.

Ballinger | 1/22/2010

Seems to me that MBA Type hasn't gone in-depth into some of my suggestions. It should be clear that I appreciate the opportunity afforded me to critique the current state-of-play in code/monitoring operations & to suggest more efficacious strategies - don't just take my word for it, pls look at how wages were raised dramatically in Indonesia: “Multinationals and Anti-Sweatshop Activism," (Ann Harrison with Jason Scorse), forthcoming, American Economic Review. Did Korean and Taiwanese bosses flee as the min. wage went from 87 cents a day to $2.47? No. (In fact, Nike had only 20,000 contract-workers there when it was less than a buck/day - increased to 110,000 when it was two-and-a-half.) Did "suggested retail" price for sneakers increase after wages tripled? No.

There's also the New Balance example that I raised early on that MBA Type didn't address. (How did that company get the labor-cost differential between China and Maine down to $2.50 per pair while increasing market share almost every year since 1996? Consumers didn't have to pay more for the 8 mil. paris of NB shoes made in the U.S.; the price points you'll see at the local FootLocker are nearly indistiguishable vis a vis competitors.)

Let me reiterate: I think that it's a brave thing that TBL is doing, opening this can of worms. That said, I still believe that there is a long way to go from a frank discussion to some game-changing initiatives.

MBA Type | 1/21/2010

From Timberland Voices of Challenge - Workplaces Dialogue Supplement:
"As a for-profit enterprise, we’re doubly-accountable for operating our business responsibly and for participating in civic society responsibly. If we lose focus on the business side, we’ll cease to exist, and if that happens, we’re no longer making a positive impact anywhere."

I think that this is a great quote and a fact conveniently forgotten by some of the more vociferous commentators. Timberland, unlike the majority of other brands, has chosen to make sustainability part of its core mission and admirably, to be as transparent about it as possible. Sometimes this has been to their determent- reread this thread, what organization in their right mind would publically open themselves up to this level of criticism for mere marketing! Yet the cry is “greenwash...” Sometimes they aren’t able to do everything they want (e.g. arbitrarily raise all wages) because of the very real existence of market pressures and competition- consumers have demonstrated an unwillingness to pay the price premium that is required to do everything that commentators have suggested. Yet their efforts are thorough, integrated and authentic. I say this as someone completely unaffiliated with Timberland who has witnessed a multi-day on-site assessment in a TBL facility in China (I’m not sure that many folks here can say that). Their methods are top-notch and although there is always room for improvement, this is the most collaborative approach that I’ve seen yet.

Unlike most, TBL makes sure that anyone that touches their product works in a safe, well-lit facility and lives in appropriate conditions after hours. They insure that payment is prompt, accurate and without duress. They encourage factory-level community building and back up their actions through grant funding. Yet despite all of that they (god-forbid) make a profit and THEN (god-forbid) they give lots of it back to the community, through an incredible array of charitable projects and collaborative enhancements to global supply chain practice. Could they go even farther and raise wages well above national standards? Perhaps, but we as the consumers, in general, have demonstrated an unwillingness to pay for that increase in costs in higher prices (despite saying that we would when surveyed).

A lot of this boils down to “is the average global worker better or worse off with a job making Timberland products?” I’d argue yes without denying that the day to day life of a factory worker, even one in an “enlightened” TBL facility isn’t great. Just think for a minute about the alternatives rural China- they don’t exactly offer tons of opportunity, education, occupational safety or growth.
Of course Timberland can do far more and I’m confident that they intend to but at the end of the day they have a very real and dare I say, ethical, obligation to shareholders to stay in business. Thus, they aim for the long term and build people through collaboration and training, not check boxes on lists. They realize that today’s ethically trained worker becomes tomorrow’s trained manager- that doesn’t happen overnight.

I wish that folks would take this opportunity with “Voices” to collaborate more and criticize less. There are plenty of brands to criticize out there but in my experience Timberland would be pretty far down on the list of those who deserve it. Given the constraint that Timberland does need to make money by selling things to justify its existence and that those things have to be manufactured, how can we as an informed community help them?

Brian Colvin | 1/1/2010

Happy New Year to all. Hopefully this new year will bring change that the entire world will benefit from. To return to the point at hand, Timberland will NOT go broke if wages for it's workers are raised to good levels. The company will still benefit from low wages, getting a full days labor for less than 1/3 of one hours pay for a worker in the US, not including benefits. Their stock holders will not lose their fortunes and be forced to live in slums, but their workers will not have to work in slums either.

The people who make Timberland products in the factories are people. They are not livestock and though they are not protected under the US constitution to have basic human rights, they are people. No matter how different and how poor, they should have the ability to improve their lives. While large corporations will say they are powerless to change it, they are quite simply lying. The corporation leaves certain decisions up to shareholders, people who have no liability and only own shares in order to profit. It's easier to make a decision that can completely destroy a life, or thousands of lives, when you don't know anything about the people. Even then, some of the more greedy shareholders would simply make excuses as to why the pay should not be raised, such as "well they should look for another job" or "they should move to a place with better jobs". They will either place the fault with the worker, or make the worker a villain, in order to suppress any remorse. These are interestingly enough, the same things unemployed people in the US hear "just go out and get a job" or "go to where the work is". While the shareholders become wealthier and the rest of the population suffers for their profits. Again, if they raised wages, Timberland will not go broke. If they raised wages the shareholders will not go broke, the company will still profit and the CSR department can proudly say they are doing something good for the people. So will they? I guess we will find out after the shareholders meeting, usually held in May.

how about some perspective, if the average worker makes 1.25 a day in a Timberland factory, they will need to work 1,160.5 years in order to make 3,706,328.00 the total compensation Jeffrey B. Swartz received in 2008, http://people.forbes.com/profile/jeffrey-b-swartz/49453 . Alternatively, it would only take 12 days if the entire workforce of 247,000 pooled their resources. Timberland as a whole, made 1,436,451,000 in income http://www.manta.com/company/mm275t1 . Interestingly enough, Jeffrey B Swartz also controls 73% of the voting power, so the shareholder meeting is just a formality http://www.answers.com/topic/the-timberland-company . While deciphering the numbers, it is apparent that raising the wage from 1.25 to 5 dollars a day could not happen out of profits alone. However, when more is spent on advertising and sponsorships.... perhaps the company should have it's priorities re-organized.

Brian Colvin | 12/17/2009

Beth, frankly to me, it sounds like a run around.
1. Price, besides the fact that I already replied to Colleens comments, basically you are saying since you are not required to pay higher than minimum wage, and you don't have a clear definition of what the standard of living is (which actually wouldn't be that hard to figure out), you are not going to pay the workers a living wage. But you don't actually address the issue of price. Seriously Beth, it's not like Timberland boots are sold for 20 dollars, and not like Timberland clothes are cheap by any stretch. Cutting costs elsewhere or even adding a few dollars on average to the price, would not make a huge difference in sales. I doubt someone shopping for Timberland boots would buy at 135.99, but not at 139.99.
2. Paying More, So NO, you haven't tried paying more so you have NO idea the impact it would have on your workers lives, and since there is no "good, results-oriented pilot program" (and I seriously doubt anyone has even looked into it or even thought about it without being sarcastic) it simply won't happen. How disappointing.
3. Competition- What "competition"? Timberland is an established brand which has the ability to charge higher prices than unestablished brands. The fact that other brands sell very good quality boots or clothes for 1/2 the price..... well I can see Timberland is really worried about pricing themselves out of the market.

If you would rather not discuss these things in this (what I thought was an) open forum, then that is fine, just say so.

Like I stated before, if you don't want to pay higher wages because legally you don't need to, that's on Timberland. But knowing full well that the workers are NOT able to provide for themselves adequately on what they are paid, and having the ability to change that, makes you bad people. Put whatever kind of polish or excuse on it as you wish, but the fact remains your company can make a difference in thousands of peoples lives who are suffering, but you don;t because you don't have to, makes those who make the decisions, very bad people. The workers are not livestock, little projects to improve their environment (which are probably tax deductible or paid for by the US government) are not better or equivalent to providing them with the means to do it themselves. The entire culture is not a group of children, they are intelligent hard working people that deserve a chance to prosper.

All I hear are excuses of why you cannot provide these people with decent wages. Timberland has the capability to pay these people well for their regions, and make a real difference in their lives. This alone would make a positive impact on the people, there and here.

You state you are open to discuss how to improve things but when people tell you (not only me) that wages are the major issue, you come up with excuses. Seriously, a few dollars a day per employee. I'm sorry but peoples LIVES ARE MORE IMPORTANT THAN PROFITS. Anything else is GREED.

Beth Holzman, CSR Strategy & Reporting Manager at Timberland | 12/14/2009

We are encouraged by the willingness of stakeholders to engage on this site, and want to make clear that we aim for input to come from a variety of sources. We also encourage that questions be posed for the benefit of all participants in the dialogue, rather than direct Q&A with Timberland. At the same time, however, we also want to participate in the dialogue ourselves. In this regard, we'll aim to answer direct questions and seek to maintain the balance and intent of the site. Many of the questions posed last week have already been covered in previous online discussion – see http://bit.ly/7YUytF

Beth Holzman, CSR Strategy & Reporting Manager at Timberland | 12/14/2009

Thanks for the thoughtful inquiry, Brian. Some of these questions have been discussed already at http://bit.ly/7YUytF. For the others, here's our take: 1) PRICE - Timberland considers multiple inputs when making sourcing decisions (including, but not only, price). See comment from Colleen Von Haden on 10/28/09 for more information. 2) PAYING MORE - We've not found a good, results-oriented pilot program to test the notion of simply paying greater wages, which is probably the reason most brands aren't engaged this way and that a scaleable solution does not exist to date. We absolutely believe that governments should set acceptable wage levels and we do in fact embrace the concept of minimum wage being a fair/ decent wage. Brands have an opportunity to engage in policy discussions with countries if wage levels are unacceptable. We recognize this is a role our brand (and others) can play, and for this reason will be focusing heavily on these topics in our Stakeholder Forum. 3) COMPETITIVE PRODUCTION IN COUNTRIES WHERE WAGE LIMITS ARE UNRESTRICTED - Timberland’s position is to uphold all local wage and labor laws when making sourcing decisions and we work hard to enforce those laws as part of our assessment process. We recognize this can be complicated by the fact that not all minimum wages are enforced or set at decent standards, and have discussed this topic more at http://bit.ly/7YUytF

Brian Colvin | 12/11/2009

And Colleen, one more thing (actually a couple), you stated: "Philosophically, we believe it is the job of governments to set wage levels.". However if a government sets wage laws, companies like yours pack up and leave the country, going to the next country which does not have wage laws so the prices can be kept low. So can you please state whether your company thinks countries SHOULD set wage levels at acceptable levels which would force your company to spend more on labor?
Alternatively, if Timberland feels it can best produce competitive products in countries where wage limits are unrestricted and many companies routinely underpay workers, can you please state so? Short of agreeing with those tactics (of course).

If you state they should, then you are contradicting Timberland's practices. If you are stating they should not (create wage laws) than you are against a fundamental change which took place in the US and changed the landscape of America. But please do answer.

I guess your poor company simply cannot afford to give those factory workers that little thing called dignity because "Practically, we do not believe we can be competitive by arbitrarily paying above market rates". And as far as your Arbitrary pay, how about starting with enough to provide their family a decent living with. Want to find out how much that is, how about going there and living there for a while and finding out. I mean, if you are so dedicated to doing the right thing and feel that any increase is unreasonable. Live there, do what they have to do (on what they make) because they have no other options.

If you think I am being unreasonable please forgive me. I am simply speaking out in the name of the millions of people who cannot because if they will, their families will starve because they will be sent to jail for even implying that conditions are below acceptable or that pay is less than what is needed to live on.

Brian Colvin | 12/11/2009

Beth, want to raise awareness? Stop patting yourselves on the back for spending millions of dollars "talking about it" and actually do it. Do what I proposed in my last post, pay people enough to create a good living for themselves (which would still be a fraction of paying US workers). When you do this, then put these people in your commercials where they work and where they live. Show them after they have adjusted and are wearing clean clothes, going home to a real home, and show their kids in school. Show what the place looked like before Timberland, and show what it looks like after. Show their homes before and after.

Do you remember those commercials in the 80's about Ethiopia? People remember those because they do NOT want other human beings to suffer.

So then, after a consumer sees that commercial and goes to the store and looks at a pair of Timberland Boots, then looks at another pair of boots, which do you think they will be more inclined to buy. Before you answer that, remember that people like myself are working very hard to document and show to the world the truth behind about the way the people working in these factories actually live.

Brian Colvin | 12/11/2009

Colleen........ So basically you are telling me, when your buying department talks to a factory representative, they do not ask for the lowest possible price. This action in itself and the fact that the factory is located in a country with minimal labor protection laws..... leads anyone to believe that the idea is to take advantage of the system. You are also stating that paying the workers a higher wage would give your company a disadvantage? Timberland has a reputation and products such as boots regularly sell for 100 dollars or more, the workers who make these boots are paid pennies........ Timberland has a CSR department which probably costs millions of dollars, and who knows what the CEO and top level execs make. Cutting costs where millions of dollars are spent (even slightly) and then increasing the wages where only a few hundred are spent, would actually make your company more competitive (and more profitable).
So in effect, it IS as simple as paying more (more there, a little less here).
Here's a simple question that would knock the legs off my platform, out of the hundreds (or thousands) of factories that produce Timberland Products, has it been tried in even ONE? Has your company determined the amount which would enable the average worker to work a normal work week (normal for humans, not slaves) and provide for their family without forcing their spouses and children to work, and then in at least ONE factory, paid the workers that amount, or even (god forbid) a little more? If you can show me proof of this, then I will resign my argument that yes Colleen, it is simply about the money. Give people the means (money) and they will take care of themselves. Give them enough money to provide for their family, and the children will be freed up to go to school. Give them enough money to surpass their needs, and they will actually become consumers. You know those things your company (and every company in the world) needs in order to survive? Building camps where you provide the food, water, shelter and "education" and you might as well call them livestock.

Beth Holzman, CSR Strategy & Reporting Manager at Timberland | 12/10/2009

In response to other comments from this week, we at Timberland would love to see more consumers rewarding responsible brands for their contributions to human rights improvements. We’d welcome consumer feedback about whether or not they think we should be investing in worker training, health & safety improvements, and sustainable living environments to ensure wages meet workers basic needs and afford opportunities to better their lives. However, we have not yet seen this demand manifest itself in the marketplace. Improving consumer awareness should be all of our responsibilities – perhaps brands can think creatively about how to share information about our human rights work in ways that resonate, provide credibility, and are accessible to everyday consumers. Because even the very important (and much needed) conversations taking place on this site are not conversations that translate to current levels of consumer awareness. This is something we’d love to hear more about – do you have direct consumer experiences to share? Do you know of other brands that are effectively communicating their social welfare programs at this level?

Colleen von Haden, Sr. Mgr. Code of Conduct, Timberland | 12/10/2009

Even though both TBL and most participants to this discussion embrace the principle of a living wage, it’s clear that there is a fundamental difference between Timberland’s view of one brand's role and capabilities, compared to the view that folks raise to essentially “just pay more.” Philosophically, we believe it is the job of governments to set wage levels. Practically, we do not believe we can be competitive by arbitrarily paying above market rates. However, we DO believe we have a responsibility to contribute to social and educational programs that benefit the workers who make our products. We continue to find value in engaging with communities of need rather than ignoring (or boycotting). We believe our involvement can lead to tangible changes. Our assessors focus beyond surface layer findings and assist factory management to build management systems to ensure fair, safe, and non-discriminatory workplaces and living conditions. To clarify, we focus heavily on safe working conditions as well as production/capacity planning to reduce hours, wage/hour management and hiring practices. Our process requires worker engagement, root cause analysis and management system implementation. We are continuing to listen to the discussion here, and planning to push it further in our upcoming stakeholder forum.

Brian Colvin | 12/9/2009

Dear Frustrated,

You imply simply by the size of the team and the website, that Timberland is doing a good job. While many others see it for what it is, a smoke screen. After all, if the revenue used to pay this whole CSR team was distributed among the factory workers making Timberland products, their pay would probably double. They hold conferences and internal debates and discussions when there is in effect nothing to discuss. Pay the workers "something more than what is precisely needed for their own maintenance"..... Adam Smith 1776. However the bad thing is, Timberland and companies like it leave it up to the shareholder who cares only if the stock is up or down. So they are in effect putting profits over people. According to the book "good to great" which profiles companies which have routinely surpassed wall street trends and consistently showed profits and almost never laid workers off, they did not base decisions upon profits, especially immediate profits. Companies which have outperformed and outshine others build up the company around a strong product and strong core values over time, another thing is that they always treat their workers well.
The cost of the pay of all the executives at the meeting mentioned below broken up into an hourly figure, probably could have provided a great thanksgiving feast for all the workers, however they don't celebrate Thanksgiving in China, so they don't need it. I mean, after all, they have been "talking" about improving things for two months now, that's enough, right?

Since the meeting will convene in front of stakeholders, we already know what the results will be. These people think that a nickel a day is a fortune in China and that they are doing a good thing.

Brian Colvin | 12/9/2009

Ballinger, Swartz's panels are obviously talking to the wrong consumers, because I'm sure a CEO wouldn't stoop that low to speak to the common folk.

The statement is absurd "don;t do anything horrible or despicable", paying people below the standard of living IS HORRIBLE. Perhaps if people like him could look past this quarters bottom line, they could see what they do in a positive manner today can positively affect them in the long term. For example, if they went to the factory owners and told them they are willing to increase the price paid for the goods and in return the workers pay will increase and demand improvements in the safety, the factories will comply.
I tried to start a company where I was going to open a factory in China, when I talked to managers and workers, I told them I would work them no more than 50 hours a week and would pay them well above the standard of living for the area, they said I would be a hero in China. Timberland can go to the factories and demand better pay and safety, or open their own factory and hire the right person to keep the standards high.

The sad thing is, CEO's like Swartz don't realize, that since companies have sent millions of US jobs to Mexico, China, India and other countries where labor can be exploited for profits, the US consumer which is his main market, is losing purchasing power. If you are destroying the purchasing power of your main consumer, while not building up the purchasing power anywhere else, you are catering your high priced products to less and less people who can afford them. However, if corporations voluntarily paid middle class wages wherever they produced their product, their workers would become consumers as well over time. Maybe not for Timberland boots but other products which would grow the local and therefore global economy. It's simple math, you keep taking away from everywhere and eventually you get to zero.

Timberland could easily hire someone who could build up their foreign factories to be good places to work, where people are well paid and happy, and it will still be a lot cheaper than producing in the US. This can be used also in advertising to show the consumer that the workers are able to build a better life for themselves, due to Timberland. Sure initial margins would be cut slightly, however I'm sure sales would rise because people DO want to do and support what is RIGHT.

So, what is more imporant Mr. Swartz, this quarter's bottom line, or people?

Ballinger | 12/5/2009

It did not surprise me to hear that Mattel has dropped monitoring and compliance programs for supplier factories. After all, this is what the Timberland CEO, Jeffrey Swartz wrote just last week:
"With regard to human rights, the consumer expectation today is somewhere in the neighborhood of, 'don’t do anything horrible or despicable,' and nowhere near, 'provide health services and
support programs to help employees live a better life.' And if the issue doesn’t matter much to the consumer population, there’s not a big incentive for the consumer-minded CEOs to act, proactively." Mattel did have one outsized personality on its CSR team - Prof. Prakash Sethi was alone amongst "compliance experts" to squarely address the issue of restitution: [multinationals and their contractors need to make] “restitution for years and years of expropriation of wages of workers who are at the bottom of the food chain and are least able to defend themselves.” Such honest appraisals are not generally the hallmark of Corporate Social Responsibility reporting. Then, in 2007, he told the New York Times that “bigotry” was at the root of most companies’ refusal to even try to grapple with some of these issues. Well, I wonder if Mattel is not now teetering on the edge of Dr. Sethi’s abyss, about to join the mass of corporate bottom-feeders out there? And what about Jeffrey Swartz's assessment of our incurious consumer? Indeed, I have expressed some surprise throughout the last several years that there was no push-back from shareholders - paying for "compliance" efforts long after the "sweatshop" issue posed any real threat. I'm guessing that apparel/shoe profits and dividends have been generally satisfactory (not so for Mattel).

Thuyen Nguyen, Vietnam Labor Watch | 12/4/2009

It would not be a meaningful debate if we ignore the issue of a living wage for those factories workers making Timberland products. I just read an article in the Vietnamese newspaper, "The Worker", which told a story how wages at sewing factory was so low that two young girls who fainted while working on the sewing line refused to take a few hours off. Because a few hours off would mean that they wont be able to pay rent this month. The article went on explaining that the two have been skimming on food to save extra money to help their families. The article was on Nov-28-2009, 2 days after Thanksgiving. http://tinyurl.com/y92rrvy

Gordon Peterson, VP CSR, Timberland | 12/4/2009

Jeff: As promised, we’ve gone through all the questions and comments in this forum and have posted our thoughts about the key questions and issues. Also, thank you for clarifying your interest in sitting down with us. In advance of the stakeholder forum we’re planning for 2010, we would like to invite you to meet individually with our team. We’d benefit from your experience as a well-respected expert and from a deeper understanding of your positions. It's my hope that a future conversation will also help us gather additional information about the key issues we plan to cover in our forum and present us an opportunity to share more about Timberland's approach. With that in mind – I want to use this opportunity to make sure everyone on this site feels comfortable contributing to the conversation. We continue to seek comments that reflect the collaborative and engaging intent of this site. For other discussions, we’d like to cover those items in the individual meeting proposed above.

Gordon Peterson, VP CSR, Timberland | 12/4/2009

The influx of questions and ideas that we’ve received on this site so far has been extremely valuable – they’ve led us to evaluate our position on certain issues and to gain greater clarity for ourselves and for you, our site visitors, on how we’re actually working to make positive change. In an effort to continue this valuable conversation, we’re planning to convene a stakeholder forum in the first half of 2010 to discuss concrete and comprehensive strategies for creating fair, safe, and non-discriminatory workplaces across our industry – including the topic of wages, which is of particular concern to Timberland and many on this site. After this meeting takes place, we’ll share its outcomes and implications here on Voices of Challenge. In the mean time, you can find Timberland’s perspective on the key issues that have been discussed on this site at http://bit.ly/7YUytF

Rod Palmquist, International Campaigns Coordinator, United Students Against Sweatshops | 12/3/2009

Question: Is focusing on improving available services for factory workers the best way to improve their quality of life and opportunities for betterment?

No. I think the question and the existence of this website highlights what Timberland's real focus on labor rights is, namely insulating itself from taking any real responsibility for sweatshop conditions in its supply chain. By outsourcing orders to subcontractors via online exchanges, who then in turn further outsource orders to thousands of factories around the world, Timberland is able to drive down prices and pit factories and subcontractors against each other in a race to the bottom. Is it any wonder given these price constraints imposed by brands like Timberland that factories and subcontractors compete on the basis of exploiting labor? Labor is one of the few variable costs that factory managements have control over, which leads to rampant abuses, such as: hiring from blacklists, not paying minimum wages, unpaid overtime and sick leave, brutally long working hours, union-busting, and needless to say, skimping on the "factory services" highlighted by this smokescreen of a website. The first step to finding solutions to sweatshop abuses is raising consumer and public awareness that brands like Timberland -- and their extensive Corporate Social Responsibility teams -- are the ones responsible for these problems in the global economy.

Gordon Peterson, VP CSR, Timberland | 11/20/2009

I’m writing to update everyone on the status of our promised summary of issues that have been raised in this discussion, as well as Timberland practices and thoughts about each. We had planned to post it this week, but some of the points raised have led to a robust internal discussion that is still underway. Some of the comments we’re reviewing have caused us to consider issues in new ways, which has added value to the process. We remain committed to getting the summary online, so it can be used to help continue the dialogue on the site. We’ll check back next week with an update.

Gordon Peterson, VP CSR, Timberland | 11/20/2009

In response to Jim - our current worker interview process, which does take place inside the factory, typically yields plenty of useful information, including actionable information that management wouldn’t necessarily be happy for us to hear. Factory management doesn’t pick the participants- our assessors do. We invite employees to participate randomly based on full employee lists, and we walk the factory floor in real-time inviting other employees of our choosing. We use open-ended queries (not narrow questions) that make “coached” answers difficult for an employee to use in response. On the rare occasion when employees don’t seem talkative, we do renew the discussion outside the factory setting. We have discussed in the past whether in-home interviews would add additional value, or whether they would be an unnecessary invasion of privacy. Based on your offer, we are revisiting that issue internally. That’s about as far as we can go with a response for now, but we will update stakeholders in the future via this forum regarding whether or not we decide to pursue the idea further.

Jim Keady on Ballinger | 11/16/2009

Gordon,

My name is Jim Keady. I am a colleague of Jeff Ballinger's and have been actively engaged full-time for 12 years to get Nike's workers living wages and tri-party collective bargaining agreements. This past July, after 10 years of prodding, Nike sent Caitlin Morris, their Director of Innovation and Sustainable Business to Indonesia with me to meet workers in their homes and on their terms. For one week, Ms. Morris heard first hand of the ongoing violations of Nike's Code of Conduct, the struggle for workers to live on Nike's sweatshop wages, and the hope that these workers for a better life. In a word, I would say that Ms. Morris was "shocked." I did not think that she was quite prepared to see the depths of the violations of workers' rights, especially in a country where we have focused energy for 15 years and Nike thought they were making progress. Why did Nike think they were making progress? They were (and perhaps still are) kidding themselves with the CSR approach. So, here is what I suggest. Why not do one better than Nike and have Mr. Ballinger bring you to meet workers in their homes and on their terms AND have a couple of independent reporters come with you to cover the whole thing? THAT would show real transparency on your part. If you are not interested in this, please publicly state why on this board.

Peace, Jim Keady
www.teamsweat.org

Ballinger | 11/13/2009

A welcome strategy concept, Gordon - though I'll still push for a debate. One small thing that I think you've misconstrued. (I understand that it's alot to ask for you to see behind the egoistic bluster...) I never actually said that I didn't want to meet with you/your team privately. What I did say was that I don't do dialogue with corporations in the context of tweaking CSR approaches. While I may practice militant abstentionism when it comes to CSR, I firmly believe that some of these matters require urgent attention and it would be nothing less than rank stupidity to pass on an opportunity to convince Timberland to try other approaches. I certainly see much room for improvement in the $31.7 billion which corporations spent last year on Reputation Management, Strategic Philanthropy, Triple Bottom Line, Sustainability, etc. How big is this number? Well, you could fill the Houston Astrodome with ping-pong balls and have enough left over to fill Rich Branson’s huge new hangar at Gatwick Airport. What are activist groups spending? Roughly, enough to fill two Motel 6 rooms.

Gordon Peterson, VP CSR | 11/12/2009

Jeff: I accept that you don’t want to meet privately with us to explore your ideas and suggestions further. That said, we think that a back-and-forth “debate”- either online or verbally- is unlikely to be the most efficient way to continue the discussion with you. But maybe there's another way to add clarity to what’s been said so far (if you'll indulge me for not giving up on the point that I believe we are both fighting for the worker).

My plan is to have our team go back through every post on this site, and capture specific questions/issues raised. And then, summarize specifically our current actions or point-of-view on each question/issue. I want to make sure we’ve heard your thoughts, seen your issues, and addressed them. We’ll publish the summary on this site. And where needed, we'll include a column called “gaps” between your view of what should happen, and our view of what we are capable of achieving.

So, we’ll review the on-line process to date and try to figure out where we are, and where we head from here.

You are no fun to play “I’ll post, you post,” with, but you have a well-deserved reputation as a principled and well-informed advocate who has made an impact over many years. We can learn from you, and as a consequence, make additional constructive changes in the value chain. Thank you for pushing.

We’ll be back middle of next week.

Ballinger | 11/12/2009

Beth: DO WE SHARE A COMMON GOAL? Let me be clear about what I’m attempting to do here: #1) I don’t do dialogue with corporations so, if anyone is proceeding on the assumption that I’m out to help Timberland (or, by extension, the industry) to tweak the code/monitoring/CSR model, you’re going to be frustrated. 2) Suspecting that NO ONE (except other CSR practitioners) looks in-depth at the company’s prodigious CSR reporting, I try to get the company on the record in this “Voices of Challenge” discussion as sort of a short-cut (maybe for journalists or students searching for a one-stop-shop for an activist’s critique of CSR). When (if) Timberland answers me here about the numbers they employ on the CSR team, I can ask a follow-up on whether or not they are counting consultants (such as Cone Inc.) and maybe many others. 3) To the extent possible, I’m trying to turn this into the debate which Timberland refuses to grant me, as “Frustrated in Vancouver” suggests. I expect that it will be repellent to those out there who applaud Timberland’s work to date and only want to engage within the strictures of current “outsourcing” self-regulation practices. Finally, 4) No one should assume that I “want the same thing that Timberland does.” Timberland is a corporation which has shareholders – it has to please the shareholders first, then it can address issues related to its contract-workforce. I have a single focus on what can be done to help workers.

Beth Holzman, CSR Strategy & Reporting Manager at Timberland | 11/12/2009

Timberland does not support the denouncing of any stakeholder's credibility (or any other voice added to this dialogue, for that matter) and politely ask that all participants refrain blame, attacks, or defense of particular participants. While our positions might differ, the fact that we share a common goal is an important starting point. We welcome the opportunity for new comments and questions to be asked and answered.

Frustrated in Vancouver | 11/12/2009

Dear Mr. Ballinger - Your cynicism seems rightly founded, given your expertise and experience on these issues in the global economy - but what I don't understand is why you're not reading Timberland's reports, data, metrics, even posts. Many of your questions are answered in these public disclosures. How big their team is, for instance. You claim that they have no interest in being proactive, yet if you read their reports you would see many examples of how they are and why they should not be lumped into the categorical industry-wide issues. They are doing more than most - much more. I applaud the efforts of Timberland and would like to see the dialogue move to constructive brainstorming of ideas rather than putting Timberland on trial. Timberland has mentioned several times that their size is not meaningful enough to drive industry change single-handedly. And their reports certainly demonstrate how they are taking great efforts to ensure the workers in their supply chain are treated right. How do we move past Timberland-specific questions and get to an industry-wide dialogue? I think your questions have been answered by Timberland. Yet, they have posted many questions of their own with very few being responded to. Perthaps that's because the finger pointing, trial, and debate mentality that you have driven this site to be leaves others in the industry not willing to engage here. I would suspect that you want the same thing that Timberland does - broader industry-wide change - yet, I don't find you adding value to this conversation.

Ballinger | 11/11/2009

There are two competing narratives here... MINE: workers-don't see-change-on-longstanding-grievances; TIMBERLAND'S: we're-seeing-continuous-improvement-and-engaging-workers-more-and-more. As I've hinted several times, I feel there's limited utility in batting ideas back and forth. I wanted to try with Timberland b/c I believed that there could be some real (what I call "real") desire to try out-of-the-box ideas. Why would I ask about Timberland knowing about percentages of differing nationalities in supplier factories? Only to get to the NEXT question which is "Who are the major contract-labor suppliers from those countries?" This, in turn, leads to a question about which of those suppliers are "acceptable" (and are some absolutely horrid)? Good information to have, but you didn't even want to go to square one with me. And why should you, really? It's easy to brush off almost all my queries b/c CSR has completely overwhelmed the anti-sweatshop movement & Timberland has no reputational threats on the horizon. OK, maybe that's a bit harsh and suggests that your team (how big a team is it, by the way?) has no interest being more proactive. But my cynicism has some foundation in fact. Especially when one sees quotes like this from Carol Cone: "Issues like product risks, activists’ efforts, consumer actions and environmental impacts demand preparedness." She lists Timberland as a client on her website - was this in the past, or still ongoing? see: www.coneinc.com

Frances House, Director of Strategy, Institute for Human Rights and Business | 11/9/2009

Focusing on improving services available to factory workers is one means of potentially improving workers' living conditions. However, it need not be viewed as mutually exclusive to Timberland's continuing to pursue the possibility of collective action by a number of companies to raise issues of concern around wage levels and other areas of national labour law compliance with government and suppliers. . This need not be a finger-pointing exercise but, rather, framed as constructive dialogue. It will be a long, slow process. Collective action by companies sends a strong message to government, and quiet diplomacy can yield positive results. This dialogue should happen in parallel with other practical initiatives by Timberland to seek continuous improvement in worker representation, worker-centred assessments and safe grievance mechanisms in factories. I welcome the fact that Timberland is opening this area up for debate and inviting views from a range of stakeholders. Many other companies could consider doing likewise.

Colleen Von Haden, Sr. Mgr. Code of Conduct, Timberland | 11/9/2009

I also wanted to get back to the post made on 11-6-09 regarding the concerns about our factory in Bangladesh and compliance with the EPZ labor laws mandating free and fair elections for Workers' Associations. Our assessments of the factory we source from (Youngone / Karnaphuli Sportswear), the investigations by multiple field assessors and confirmed writings from the factory show that Youngone has complied with these requirements. It is correct that there is no Workers Association at Youngone, but that is not to signify a lack of compliance with the law or that the workers voices are not effectively or collectively being heard. Youngone has an active Workers Representation & Welfare Committee (WRWC) in all of its facilities, which has (among other things) proven to be a critical stakeholder in the establishment and ongoing operation of the Sustainable Living Environment project that Timberland and CARE implemented with local NGO MAMATA to provide workers access to credit and health services (see Dig Deeper paper for more details on this project). With respect to the additional provision for forming a Workers Association (WA), as detailed in Chapter-III of the Law, Youngone notified workers through notices, meetings and counselings to ensure their right to associate was understood and the procedure for doing so (the prescribed KHA form for workers to apply to BEPZA Executive Chairman expressing interest for WA formation). The requisite number of workers, as required by Section 14(1) & 15(1), has not filed applications for the WA referendum and thus no WA currently exists at Youngone enterprises. In the meantime, ensuring effective operation of the WRWC as well as ensuring that workers understand their right to associate will continue to be monitored as a regular course of our assessment process. If additional thoughts or concerns, please do share.

Colleen Von Haden, Sr. Mgr. Code of Conduct, Timberland | 11/9/2009

Regarding the suggestion made previously to send letters to international governments - I have been busy seeking input from other brands and industry groups as I continue to believe that it would be more powerful an exercise if done by more than just one brand. The consensus of my outreach thus far is that as well intentioned as this suggestion may be, it could actually prove to be counter-productive. Most countries have already ratified C81 (140 in total) yet the lack of effective implementation and enforcement of national labor laws widely exists - with the underlying cause relating to lack of resources and capacity at national and local levels. It is agreed that there is a need to engage national governments on this issue and develop systems for effective implementation and enforcement of national laws. However, the consensus does not think that a letter campaign will miraculously make that happen. And since we need this to be owned and supported by the national governments themselves, finger-pointing (which is what this may be seen as) could prove to be counter-productive. I don't consider my outreach complete, however, and will continue to see if there are other brands or industry groups interested in joining the exercise. And as mentioned in one of my earlier posts, Timberland and other major brands from multiple industries are working with the USCIB to engage the U.S. government to hopefully develop a platform and framework to engage international governments on addressing these issues. Welcome additional ideas and thoughts.

Prof. Jeffrey Winters, Northwestern University, Politics Dept. | 11/9/2009

I first met Jeff Ballinger when he was working in the USAID office in Jakarta. What I particularly admired about Jeff's work in Indonesia is that it was at the height of Suharto's power, and working with unions in those years took a lot of bravery (and I can assure you that he could not count on the full backing of the US embassy and cowards like ambassador Paul Wolfowitz at the time because most at the embassy were stumbling all over themselves trying to make Suharto feel as supported by the US as possible). I recall thinking "Indonesia's thugs don't play games, and this Ballinger guy is nuts..." As for these latest anonymous comments... trifling rubbish. Avanti Jeff!

Giorgio Montagnoli, editor of peace science text, retired professor of Chemistry, Pisa University | 11/8/2009

I read with distress the Truth Teller of 11/6/2009, because the judgement on Jeff Ballinger is unfair.

Some years ago, Jeff Ballinger passed one year at the CISP, Interdisciplinary Center for Peace Sciences on University of Pisa, doing research in human and labor rights. I had the privilege of reading some writings of him, and found in them a deep historical and social science preparation, together with a genuine interest in workmen’s rights.

George H. Sage, Emeritus Professor | 11/8/2009 | 11/8/2009

Jeff Ballinger is a working class activist extraordinaire -- a fighter for global worker rights and social justice. The material conditions of workers making goods and equipment in the global economy are his forte. Jeff’s work on labor exploitation, oppression, and low-wages in developing countries in conjunction with the Nike Social movement, was behind Nike CEO, Phil Knight’s acknowledgment in 1998 at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. that “the Nike product has become synonymous with slave wages, forced overtime, and arbitrary abuse.” Jeff has continued to work as an activist, organizer, and consultant for worker rights on manufacturing sweatshops right up to the present time, and he is considered the foremost expert on factories in Asia. So-called Truth-Teller needs to face reality and listen to Jeff Ballinger, one who knows what he is talking about and is not protecting abusive and exploitative corporations.

Jeff has continued to work as an activist, organizer, and consultant for worker rights on manufacturing sweatshops right up to the present time, and he is considered the foremost expert on Nike’s factories in Asia.

Eric Dirnbach, Workers United | 11/8/2009

I stand in solidarity with Jeff Ballinger on this issue, and with the other labor rights advocates. The industry has created the sweatshop problem, and its low-price sourcing practices encourage contractor factories to have poverty wages, long hours and bad working conditions. The industry needs to stop pretending that they can have both low prices and good labor conditions. A decent factory has higher labor costs that need to be paid for, and it remains a scandal that the companies are not negotiating proper product prices that could fund a living wage and other better conditions. The open secret in this world is that a small % retail price increase could potentially pay to solve this problem for millions of workers. The CSR efforts do some good work, but sidestep the essential economics of the problem.

Richard McIntyre | 11/8/2009

I am sorry to read this unwarranted and mean spirited attack on Jeff Ballinger. Reasonable people can disagree on the value of specific projects conducted by Jeff or anyone other activist, just as they can question the value of corporate social responsibility projects. Everyone in the "human rights/labor rights community" knows that Jeff's early work was foundational and that he has been continuously and critically engaged in these issues as long as anyone. His criticism has been aimed at folks on the labor side as much as the management side. Bad form and bad taste on truthteller's part.

Ballinger | 11/8/2009

Just a few words on why Timberland should undertake this project on asking supplier factories to query local governments on "enforcement". The following is from the late Dame Anita Roddick:

"We are the first global citizens, and our businesses and what we do ripple affects millions. In terms of power and influence, you can forget the church, and you can forget politics. There is no more powerful institution on this planet at this moment than business. ..Businesses are richer than governments, they’re faster, they’re more creative, and in terms of social innovation they can turn on a dime..." Once you say that Timberland needs to get other buyers on board, needs to get a stake-holder council w/ mission statement, &c. (my characterization) you have forfeited that advantage and you've put this initiative on a back burner (or, the deep-freeze).

Maxine Phillips | 11/7/2009

Dissent Magazine, for which I am the executive editor, has been proud to publish Jeff Ballinger's work, and we wonder why there is an unsubstantiated attack on his credibility.

Don Wells | 11/7/2009

Jeff Ballinger asked if the project "Continuous Improvement in the Central American Workplace" entailed government inspections and prosecutions for workplace violations. These are obviously important questions. To distract our attention from these questions, self proclaimed "Truth Teller" makes the silly claim that it is Ballinger who is somehow "distracting." Let's get back to Ballinger's pertinent questions.

Jeremy Larner 11.7.09 | 11/7/2009

It is sad that Jeff Ballinger's relevant & specific questions about wages, inspections, unions, human rights and working conditions are never answered, except with vague, bureaucratic rhetoric about the need for more discussion and "new paradigms." Hard to imagine that these non-replies, however well-meaning, are not finally company products of public relations departments.

Let me ask a specific question of my own. The Oct 12 issue of The New Yorker has an essay by David Owen in which he says the pay of the average American CEO was 24 times the pay of the average worker in 1965. In 2007, despite widespread fraud and financial failure, that ratio has risen to 275. Using the hourly figure of 11 cents that Ballinger refers to for a particular Asian country... or even the wage of 35 cents those workers were striking for... what would be the ratio of the compensation of the CEO of Nike or Timberland to the pay of the Asian apparel worker? One could easily see that the difference would support a great many discussion teams, paradigm shifts, and advertised "human rights campaigns"... as well as TV ads featuring high-paid celebrity endorsers.

Tim Connor | 11/7/2009

Jeff Ballinger is a long-time and well-respected advocate for workers' rights who has good connections with trade union leaders and labour advocates around the world. His critiques of the lack of effectiveness of current CSR approaches to labour rights are well-researched and shared by most honest observers of the issue, including many within companies. His call for greater focus on effective state regulation of labour rights, and for respecting workers' right to organise themselves and negotiate their own wages and working conditions, are similarly shared by all in the labour rights movement. While some of us might be less critical than Jeff of the potential usefulness of voluntary initiatives, to describe him as a spinmeister is simply ridiculous.

Dr. Tim Connor| Labour Rights Advocacy Coordinator | Oxfam Australia
PO Box 1711, Strawberry Hills, NSW 2012
Tel: +612 8204 3901 | Fax: +612 9280 3426 | Mob: +61 403 339 578
www.oxfam.org.au

Kate Macdonald | 11/6/2009

In my view also Jeff Ballinger has for many years been a leader in pushing for strengthened protections for worker rights, and he is widely regarded as such. If 'truthteller' wants to discredit Jeff's comments, he/she would be far better off seeking to engage seriously with the substance of the issues Jeff raises, instead of resorting to personal insult - the last refuge of the desperate.

Stephen Coats, Executive Director, USLEAP | 11/6/2009

While our work is in the Americas and not Asia, I have known Jeff Ballinger many years and regard him as one who has been on the leading edge in the struggle for worker rights in the apparel and footware industry. He's a respected member of the worker rights advocacy community. Frankly, I have no idea of who or what the Truth Teller is but s/he/it is clearly not a truth teller.

Leslie Kretzu, founder / former director, Educating for Justice | 11/6/2009

Beth and Colleen: I can see where Timberland might be interested in a cross-brand / cross-industry approach, as well as a multi-stakeholder effort in pressuring governments to raise minimum wages. The complexity of worker rights issues can certainly feel overwhelming at times. However, these initiatives above do not address the one, resounding, continuous request from workers in Timberland factories: higher wages, effective immediately. Timberland does not need to partner with other brands or engage in dialogue with government representatives in the short term, prior to developing / executing an internal policy on wages. Such a policy should determine how workers in Timberland factories will receive wages in line with the region's "living wage", which is often 3-4 times the government minimum wage. You could try this as a pilot project, choosing one country or even one region in one country, to create a model of change. Once developed and executed, this pilot project could be the starting ground for the cross-brand / cross-industry dialogue that you and others hope will create effective change. In short, without bold action - even on a small scale - CSR efforts may only result in "pushing paper" for months or years, without concrete changes for those who need it.

Dave Marsh | 11/6/2009

Jeff's position is impregnable with people who really know his work. The ugliness of the libels by the so-called Truthsayer which immediately followed his (typical) insistence on answering substantive questions, is one thing. More troubling is the way it distracts us from the generalization and stone-walling in the Timberland representative's terse message. Will I be forgiven for my suspicion that Truthsayer is meant to be understood for saying what Timberland dare not, or am I meant to act stupid in the name of politesse?

Mike Miller, community organizer; former field secretary Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee. | 11/6/2009

Re: your comments on Jeff Ballinger. I am puzzled by the notion "appears to ask good questions." The questions might be good, bad or indifferent, but how do they appear to be good but really not be? The comment continues, "Companies that care would do well to keep their focus on strategies that build capacity of factories to treat employees fairly..." In a world in which companies relocate to countries where labor is cheap in order to increase profit, and where these countries typically don't allow free trade unions, the observer should begin with some skepticism. And when efforts to resist unionization occur, the level of skepticism should exponentially increase. I am not close to this issue, though it interests me so I try to keep informed. I do not that Andy Young issued a whitewash report on NIKE in Vietnam about 10 years ago to which a number of former members of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee responded with an open letter to Andy--he declined to respond, though Nat Hentoff made the letter the basis for a column of his in the VILLAGE VOICE. "Truth teller" would do better to deal with the substance of Ballinger's comments, observations, questions and allegations--which to this reader often seem to have a good deal of research backing them up.

Neil Wollman | 11/6/2009

I have known Jeffrey Ballinger and his work for many years and all I can say is that I fail to see much truth in "Truth Teller." Time for a name change.

Robert J.S. Ross, professor, author of Slaves toFashion | 11/6/2009

I have two comments on this (overly?) long discussion. 1. Ballinger is a fully credible source of observation and opinion on global labor rights isues and Indonesia and Nike in particular. His finely honed views about law v. codes of conduct should be addressed by the entire CSR industry and any of its adherents. 2. Lurking behind this entire business - which is what CSR is -- an industry of its own, a cousin of accounting, driven by buyers who need cover and vendors making money -- is fate of the rule of law. Will or should workers' rights be governed or protected by law or private promises?

Guy Taylor, Globalise Resistance UK | 11/6/2009

Despite fear of labouring this point, the work of Jeff Ballinger has given strength and incredibly valuable information to everyone concerned with the issues of CSR and other examples of corporate responsibility smoke-screening, from 25 years ago and six days ago when I last consulted him. Never has a commenter been less appropriately named as 'truth teller'.

Colleen Von Haden, Sr. Mgr. Code of Conduct, Timberland | 11/6/2009

Tim, thank you for raising the concern regarding the EPZs in Bangladesh. I have reached out to my field team to learn more and will report back as soon as I do. Being transparent about factories allows for extra eyes and ears to be involved, which I am thankful for.

Sylvia Tiwon | 11/6/2009

Jeff Ballinger has worked long, hard and productively for labor and human rights for Indonesian workers. More to the point, his critique of CSR deserves serious attention and thought. Transparency and effective oversight of company practices are important. Pointing to geographic/regional difference (the last time I checked, the earthquakes have not moved Indonesia out of Asia into Australia) conceals the global reach and homogenizing impact of these companies.

Beth Holzman, CSR Strategy & Reporting Manager at Timberland | 11/6/2009

We believe that many Voices and Challenges are a good indication that we share a passion and fundamental understanding that all humans have a right to decent quality of life and fair, safe, and non-discriminatory workplaces. We absolutely believe and work to enforce 1) that workers are paid the wages they have earned; 2) the need for a global minimum wage; and 3) support the expansion of government inspection programs. For this platform to be productive, it is important to refrain from blame, attacks, or defense of particular participants. While our positions might differ, the fact that we share a common goal is an important starting point. Please note that Timberland’s approach agrees that compliance checklists only go so far - that's why we focus on assessing root causes and community infrastructure. We also agree that workers should speak for themselves - as mentioned in our "Dig Deeper" white paper (available on the Reporting page), we always put workers at the center of our in-depth assessment process by incorporating their direct feedback into factory visits, providing training for Worker committees, and working with factory management.

Max White, "Justice. Do It NIKE!" | 11/6/2009

CHEEST! Others have said, better, what I might about Jeff Ballinger. I long relied upon Jeff’s work, competence and compassion “on another continent” (yes, an archipelago lol) and here a few miles from Nike headquarters. He is trustworthy. When someone starts a sentence by saying “To tell the truth,..” one wonders. But as an anonymous name! ‘Nuf said. Back to the subject at hand.

Scott Pellegrino | 11/6/2009

Any folks in the human rights community know how tall Ballinger stands. His detractors are corrupt phonies.

Jenni Lukac | 11/6/2009

I would like to set the record straight concerning "Truth Teller's" spurious and unwarranted attacks against Jeff Ballinger. Like several other journalists who report on CSR and labour issues have previously noted in this blog, I have found Ballinger to be a serious professional whose work bears up under scrutiny. Anyone who doubts his credibility is poorly informed. He is correct in his criticism of how CSR is widely practiced today. CSR is all too often converted into what I would call "PSR" - Public Social Relations. All top brands that want to maintain their market share in the future need to prepare themselves for a growing ethical consumer movement. That will require more transparency concerning their supply chain practices and effective oversight of their subcontractors. It is worth mentioning that giving a fair deal for workers in producer regions that are also quickly becoming the world's largest consumer markets would be both good CSR and successful "PSR" for major brands.

James S. Henry, Submerging Markets | 11/6/2009

Jeff Ballinger has nothing to fear from character assassins, anonymous or otherwise. Anyone who knows the field knows there's no more dedicated, articulate, constructive proponent of global labor rights. Now as the anti-sweatshop movement is revitalized and broadened it to include other basic human rights, the question for companies like Timberland and Nike is this: will you insist that your subcontractors (1) actually pay the wages workers have earned (2) provide minimum global minimum wages (in $ppp terms) and working conditions in all your source countries, and (3) support the expansion of government inspection programs to make workers aware of those rights? Anything less is pure CSR cosmetics. And the "great compromise" of the Clinton years -- cheap imports in exchange for looking the other way at the absence of human rights, civil rights, and real democracy in places like Vietnam and China -- is as dead as a doornail.

Timothy Ryan | 11/6/2009

In 20 years of working on these issues with unions in Asia, I have never seen CSR or codes work in any sustained or real form. I co-wrote with Jeff the Harper's piece in June 1992 annotating a Nike worker's paycheck, and anyone with any knowledge of the anti-sweatshop movement knows that Jeff's work on this has been at the core of the movement, and he was the one who originally lit the fire. BTW, in response to Deborah Leipziger, she should know that Youngone in Bangladesh is the standout violator of the new laws in the EPZs mandating free and fair elections for Workers' Associations as they refuse, as mandated under the law, to allow such elections to take place. To date over 70% of the factories in the EPZs in Bangladesh have had such elections, and Workers' Associations have been elected in the vast majority of those elections. Not so in Youngone. If Timberland continues to source from Youngone, it is aiding and abetting a company to violate the law in Bangladesh.

Thuyen Nguyen, Vietnam Labor Watch | 11/6/2009

Let's not get distracted by anonymous, character assassination by truth teller. It's important to focus on the low wages Timberland is paying for its workers in Asia (China, Bangladesh etc). Timberland just needs to pay a decent, living wage so that their workers can have decent lives. There's no need for a corporation to be taking over roles that should belonged to the state or the NGOs. Timberland only has one key responsibility which is to provide a good working environment and a living wage to its workers.

Beth Holzman, CSR Strategy & Reporting Manager at Timberland | 11/6/2009

I’m jumping in here wearing my “moderator hat” once again. Timberland does not support the denouncing of Ballinger's credibility (or any other voice added to this dialogue, for that matter). Our goal for this dialogue is to build productive conversation about how brands, NGOs, governments, activists, consumers, etc. can constructively address the complex issues of fair wages, factory management, and brand responsibility. We all have a role to play in creating change – whether we are working independently or collaboratively. I welcome the opportunity for all participants to consider the platform’s intent in their forthcoming contributions.

Colleen Von Haden, Senior Manager Code of Conduct, Timberland | 11/6/2009

I'd like to come back to the idea about writing letters to international governments. I can see how waiting for a larger cross-brand or cross-industry initiative may seem like a waste in time, but I do believe that the effort by one brand, particularly a brand with as limited influence as we have (with only a small number of factories in most countries) will not achieve the results we're looking to achieve. The USCIB has organized a group of major brands from multiple industries seeking public-private collaboration with U.S. State Dept. and Dept. of Labor on global working conditions - looking for ways to address the lacking resource and capacity of local international governments' labor laws and enforcement infrastructure. I'm hoping through efforts like this that we can find ways to drive the needle on minimum wage and other labor laws and their enforcement.

Colleen Von Haden, Senior Manager Code of Conduct, Timberland | 11/6/2009

Not meaning to be unresponsive at all -- I'm telling you what I know about CIMCAW. Our involvement was very limited and focused on raising awareness for our workers through a series of trainings for supervisors and workers involving local NGOs and unions. I've asked our partner agencies to weigh in and share what they know about the rest of the program.

Melody Kemp | 11/6/2009

What appears to me to me a bit fishy about this is that Truth Teller is one of the few to hide behind a pseudonym.

The CSR movement like a lot of the development fashions that emanate form the Global North are in the main about stabilising the status quo and satisfying the West. The artifice of doing little that is substantive about offering living wages and conditions while appearing like Hadrian to move mountains. Industrial artifice is somewhat like wayang; merely a uni-dimensional projection .. CSR provides in my 23 years of living in Asia, the business as usual models by which corrupt governments of many shades in the south can pimp their labour forces in return for foreign investments and shopping trips to NY., allow Western consumers to sleep at night oblivious to the social transformation and cultural disfigurement caused by industrialisation in the Global south and provide endless employment for fly in fly out consultants ( Indonesia? Yeah I think I flew over it once) . And we have not even began to delve into the carbon taxes that could be charged on all the goods and materials being shipped across the globe in pursuit of share holders profits.. Environmental profligacy and globalisation are bed partners, to continue the innuendo.


But underlying this is the complexity of workers motivations and aspirations, cultural traditions and needs. In Laos where I live, workers do no want to sign workplace contracts as that forbids them from participating in rice harvest and planting, both socially meshing activities that also have spiritual significance. Those who don't understand this bellow for contracts. Yawn. We would like to think its all simple and that is a projection of how we as westerners see the world. We are simple folk really. A car , Prada handbag (made in Indonesia) and a plasma screen TV (made in Taiwan) is enough to buy us off. We have no truck with merit making or puja. What Jeff (who I have known and argued with for many years since we worked together in that far off continent -well actually an archipelago but truth sayer is a bit geographically challenged) is recognising is that complexity and that the corporate attempt to reduce that to a checklist is at all possible and to what degree it is relevant. If at all. dignity sorta gets left out of all of this. Maybe it shouldn't. Letting the workers speak for themselves in all the dialects of humanity is essential. Colonialism lives on in free trade zones in all of its patronising style.
Go for it Jeff..
I am heading back to Indon next year by the looks of things. Greg T, lovely to see you in print as it is Rudy.

Tim Shorrock | 11/6/2009

I've been a journalist for over 30 years, and have covered labor rights issues and globalization since they first came to the attention of US labor and the public. I take great exception to the dissing by "Truth Teller" of Jeff Ballinger. He and I have not always agreed; I was never a fan of AAFLI and wrote several articles very critical of AAFLI during the 1980s and in 2003. I know who is and who is not respected in this community, and I for one have the greatest respect for Jeff. He is honest and committed, and wants to keep unions, watch groups and corporations honest as well. He has contributed mightily to the labor rights movement and continues to do so. "Spinmeister?" Ridiculous.

Rudy Porter | 11/6/2009

Claptrap from Truth Teller. The one I like most is where T.T. says Ballinger's work was "on a different continent." His work was on the continent where most Timberland products are made! Check out the Timberland supplier list, T.T.: over 100 factories in China. "Companies that care." That's another good one.

John M. Miller | 11/6/2009

I want to echo the support of Jeff Ballinger, who I have worked with on Indonesia and East Timor (Timor-Leste) issues for nearly 15 years. One only needs to read his comments below to know that he is a well-informed critical thinker. This field needs more such provocateurs.

Gavin Fridell, Trent University | 11/6/2009

Its simply absurd, and typically, of "Truth tellers" to avoid dealing with the issues raised by an important commentator like Ballinger with unproven and unprovable insults. It is of course an easy matter for "Truth teller" as he clearly has aligned himself with the powerful. A much more difficult task is the one that Ballinger has taken on, to try and raise real questions that make the powerful uncomfortable. "Truth teller" should have more respect for Ballinger who is clearly willing to challenge the status quo and the rich and powerful, rather than defend them with meaningless attacks. Why not deal with the issues Ballinger raises? David Benson is right, to do so with reason and fact would be difficult--and it would probably make "Truth Teller" feel more than a bit uncomfortable about who his friends are.

Greg Talcott | 11/6/2009

I knew Jeff Ballinger when he was in Indonesia and the program he set -up for AAFLI using workers to survey other workers about pay and other working conditions was both efficient and innovative. It was hardly a radical exercise unless you consider exposing companies that were not complying with Indonesian labor law, as weak as it was, revolutionary. Their is no doubt that Jeff is a committed activist, committed to helping those who are disadvantaged. He knows, as do some multinational companies, that cheap labor is not inexpensive; it costs in the long run in lower productivity and the quality of its product. Enlightened business people know this.

Benjamin Fasching-Gray | 11/6/2009

The so-called "Truth Teller" is incorrect when he says that Ballinger's work produced no known long term results. Ballinger was one of the first, if not the first, to draw attention to footwear industry sweatshops in South East Asia and his work helped start the Students Against Sweatshops movement, without which this website wouldn't exist. Still more tangibly, his research in Indonesia was an important factor in the movement that helped raise the minimum wage in that country.

To argue that he is not respected in this or that community is worse than ludicrous, it is a form of mobbing.

David Bensman, Rutgers University | 11/6/2009

This ad hominem attack on Jeff Ballinger is inappropriate. Ballinger has made informed, substantive comments, and asked important questions. If someone attacks him, rather than addresses his questions and comments, that seems to be an evasion, an admission that his arguments are difficult to counter with reason and facts.

katharina weingartner, sneaker stories | 11/6/2009

dear truth teller
as a journalist and documentary filmmaker i have followed jeff ballingers work since his early presentations in nyc and i have never again been so impressed with anybody in the field - he is incredibly competent, always uptodate informed, passionate and sober about his subject - banter????? disrespected in the community??? makes me wonder what your motives are...

Truth Teller | 11/6/2009

Be careful! Ballinger appears to ask thoughtful, even probing questions, but he is a lifelong provocateur and spinmeister that makes green washing look pretty good. Ballinger's comparison between his own self-proclaimed, cost effective USAID funded project and CIMCAW makes no sense -- Ballinger's work was more than 25 years ago, on a different continent and resulted in no known long term results. He is as disrespected within the human rights/labor rights advocacy community as he is with the community of responsible companies seeking to improve conditions for workers. Companies that care would do well to keep their focus on strategies that build capacity of factories to treat employees fairly and less on the somewhat interesting, but mostly distracting probing that has characterized Ballinger banter.

Ballinger | 11/6/2009

Well, that was a pretty non-responsive answer, Colleen. I was mainly interested in whether or not actual government-led inspections had increased AND more successful prosecutions of law-breakers was undertaken. Was this not part of the metrics being measured? Even though Timberland was only involved in the DR part of this project (where interesting work in labor law enforcement is actually going on), it seems like you ought to be able to go to DAI and get the numbers I've asked for. As I mentioned in one of my earliest posts here, we must start talking about the efficacy of foreign aid programs. I ran a couple of USAID-funded projects that cost a small fraction of the CIMCAW but with rather dramatic measurable impacts (most importantly, raised wages). That was part of the reason that I asked about how much corporations contributed - we need to begin to measure bang-for-buck. You must be aware that some workers in Timberland's supply are working at below-subsistence wages, yet I sense no urgency on your part to explore potential solutions outside the CSR "continuous improvement" toolkit. (Of course you know what happens when adults make less than a living wage. Their children cannot go to school & are forced into various informal-sector jobs.) Timberland billed this discussion as a "Challenge". To date, however, it's a place where serious questions are raised and alternative projects suggested but there's no meaningful engagement.

Colleen Von Haden, Senior Manager Code of Conduct, Timberland | 11/5/2009

DAI worked in Central America with international apparel buyers that included Gap Inc., Wal-Mart, Limited Brands, and Timberland to enhance labor standards in apparel and textile factories. With financial support from USAID and financial and in-kind support from the apparel companies, DAI staff worked with international and local nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) recognized for their workplace training approaches and with unions and local governments to achieve sustainable change in workplace conditions. Active in Honduras, Guatemala, El Salvador, Nicaragua, and Dominican Republic, this multistakeholder initiative worked with both workers and managers to integrate solution-based approaches into the management systems of local supplier factories. The training identified approaches for meeting national and international labor standards that enhance productivity and competitiveness. It also strengthened the capacity of local monitoring groups and government inspectors to carry out workplace evaluation now done by the multinational buyers. Timberland only participated in the program in the Dominican Republic as that was the only country we were sourcing from at the time. In our facility the focus was conflict resolution and awareness of rights. They tailored to our interests, however, we were to include certain topics as part of the USAID agreement which included wage/benefits review, union facts, and certain law modules.

Craig Moss, Director Corporate Programs & Training, SAI | 11/5/2009

I agree with Doug's comment about the skill and the will. At SAI, we look at Attitude, Skills & Knowledge as the key components to training in the area of social performance. Whether training auditors, suppliers or brands we believe that all three areas are critical to improvement. I think we all share the same goal - to drive continual improvement in the social performance of suppliers. Timberland has been committed to this goal. We have been working with them using tools to measure and improve their suppliers.

Doug Cahn, principal at The Cahn Group, LLC | 11/4/2009

I can't speak to the specifics of the CIMCAW project but I do know that both "skill" and "will" are essential (and too often lacking) components of effective labor inspectorates. John Ruggie, Special Representative to the UN Secretary General for business and human rights, has reaffirmed the obligation of governments to protect human rights (see: http://www.reports-and-materials.org/Ruggie-report-7-Apr-2008.pdf ) and the obligation of companies to respect (do no harm) human rights. It's a very useful framework for placing companies obligations -- including Timberland's -- in context.

Ballinger | 11/4/2009

I see that the USAID spending on this project was nearly $ 4 mil. (2004-08). Please address the question of the corporate contribution, at least from Timberland. What disturbs me about the CIMCAW is the focus on "capacity-building" for labor inspectors (over 600 trained, according to the lengthy post-project report, available here: http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PDACM464.pdf ). For these countries in Central America it is more of a question of political will (to inspect and punish wrong-doers) than it is having the "skill" to inspect. Don't you agree? Anyway, the long report is silent on the question of increased inspections. Did the number of workplaces inspected annually in Nicaragua, Honduras, Guatemala, El Salvador and the Dominican Republic INCREASE by 2008? How about the number of violations found, back pay awards, &c.?
I recall digging into a similar "capacity-building" project involving a few big grants from the U.S. Dept. of Labor - initiated under Clinton, carried out in the early Bush years. No one at DOL would respond to my queries about whether or not labor inspections actually improved (and I was addressing the questions to the specific people who oversaw this spending). Hopefully, Timberland will be more responsive.

Ballinger | 11/3/2009

I'm curious about "Continuous Improvement of the Central American Workplace" (CIMCAW). Timberland participated along with GAP, is that right? Was it entirely USAID-funded, or were corporations expected to contribute? What was the entire three-year budget? Did "continuous improvement" include tracking real wages in your factories? If so, are the findings available somewhere on-line?

Heather Franzese, TransFair USA | 11/2/2009

We are pilot testing a new model to channel more money to factory workers through Fair Trade. The delivery mechanism is a Fair Trade premium, a bonus like the Counter Sourcing example cited earlier. The premium is paid by the brand, directly to a worker-controlled fund and workers decide democratically how the funds should be allocated. It could be distributed as a cash bonus (especially where there’s high turnover migrant labor), pooled for collective investment in services such as health or education, or some combination of the two. The program uses the Fair Trade Certified label as a mechanism to translate consumer demand for better factory working conditions into real dollars for workers.

Ballinger | 11/2/2009

Colleen wrote last week: "...I like the suggestion of writing letters to host country governments and posting this information [on labor law enforcement] publicly." She goes on to ask if it's already been done anywhere - not to my knowledge - and adds that it would be better if multiple groups were involved. Regarding the latter point, I would just say that it is important for some brand to lead off in this effort and not wait for a "multi-stakeholder" group to come together. Timberland has been out there for some years now representing itself as being truly committed to real change for the workers - let's just see.

Pancho Valdez | 10/29/2009

Unfortunatley huge international corporations have already inflicted damage not only to workers in Asia, Africa and Latin America, but also have polluted the air, land and water.
Unless workers are permitted to freely unionize and fight for better working conditions, wages, etc, no amount of charitable activity is going to suffice! We must build true solidarity with our brothers and sisters in third world sweatshops. If boycotting the products of these unscrupulous employers is what it takes, then so be it! REAL progress comes from struggle not bleeding hearts who haven't a clue as to what is truly going on in these sweatshops!

Adityajit Singh Tiwana, student, Bentley University | 10/28/2009

"we can take the horse to the water, but cant make it drink...or can we?" I believe Timberland as a company is facing a very generic issue most multi-national companies face in that by improving the services provided to the workers, will their everyday lives improve? I believe improvement of a person's everyday life needs to come from within the person himself. I am not sure whether improving the working conditions in factories will "teach" people to "improve" their lives outside the factory walls. I believe a company's responsibility is not limited to within the walls of the factory, but must extend further outward, into the very homes of the workers. Very often, we see that even though workers are taught how to conduct themselves well in the work place, they revert to a more "natural" state once work is done. The aim of a Socially responsible corporation needs to extend to improving the "natural" state of the worker, so they, in effect, become socially responsible in life.
The question is, does Timberland have the wherewithal to take up this responsibility? Does Timberland care enough as a corporation? Can and does Timberlan want to afford to do this?

Colleen Von Haden, Senior Manager Code of Conduct at Timberland | 10/28/2009

And one last comment from me today...I like the suggestion of writing letters to host country governments and posting this information publicly. I would imagine, however, what's likely to be most effective is if multiple stakeholder groups (local factories, international brands, and NGOs, etc.) were making the same inquiries. We are members of many trade organizations that perhaps would be a platform to encourage and galvanize other brands to do the same. Has this exercise been employed by anyone to date? What has the result been? Are there others willing to explore these efforts?

Colleen Von Haden, Senior Manager Code of Conduct at Timberland | 10/28/2009

Finding solutions to the disparity that exists between minimum legal wage and a fair wage in many developing countries, and the lack of enforcement and/or existence of labour laws is the exact dialogue we want to have. A constructive brainstorm for sharing ideas and ultimately finding a solution requires involvement from several stakeholder groups (governments, brands, NGOs, public-private partnerships) all working in collaboration. We believe that the solution needs to be driven not by one brand at a time but by cross-brand, cross-industry, public-private collaboration. That's what I'd like to learn more about. how/where this is happening, what the results have been to date, and how to engage more or differently to drive change faster. In an earlier post I raised the efforts of the Asia Floor Wage organization and would like to know more about their efforts to drive policy change and how ethical corporations can participate in these advocacy efforts. Is anyone involved in this dialogue able to share more information?

Colleen Von Haden, Senior Manager Code of Conduct at Timberland | 10/28/2009

Questions have also been asked in earlier posts about our purchasing/sourcing decisions. Timberland operates in a global economy and makes decisions about where our products are produced with several factors in mind: cost, performance, lead time, reliability, quality, environmental performance, compliance with our Code, capability, and factory location. We believe Timberland can leverage our influence to improve the lives of workers globally as opposed to avoiding certain countries. Of course, if there is no willingness by the factory to protect its workers or improve conditions, we do have limits to our willingness to work with them. Our Code of Conduct stipulates that factories pay workers the legal minimum wage for regular hours and overtime at a premium. Additionally, we have chosen to focus on the opportunity to create Sustainable Living Environments because we know that regardless of wage, local conditions may not provide workers with adequate or affordable healthcare, shelter, food, clothing, and education. That is something we feel we can and should address directly - see our Dig Deeper paper for how we're working on these issues (and case studies of some of the results). Timberland cannot create large-scale change alone within the current manufacturing paradigm of the global economy. That is why we are advocating and looking for suggestions for collaborative models.

Colleen Von Haden, Senior Manager Code of Conduct at Timberland | 10/28/2009

I'm pleased to see new voices joining in. I agree Mike, that worker input is critical to the impact and sustainability of services. As discussed in our Dig Deeper paper, we spend considerable amount of time engaging workers in the decision making process to understand their needs and wants, as well as well-informed research from local and international NGOs. More on that in posts to come, but as Beth explained, there's a few Timberland specific questions that we'd like to respond to first. Questions were voiced earlier about migrant workers in our factories. Timberland works closely with our factories to ensure migrant workers are treated with the same dignity and respect and afforded the same legal rights as local workers. We do track how many and from where migrant workers come. We also review how they are recruited and how their voice is "heard" at the factory to ensure their employ is of free will, of equal rights, and with opportunities to better their lives. This is imperative information and critical analysis for all workers - migrant, contract and local. Providing a breakdown of numbers does not address the point. What matters most is what we do to ensure that all workers are treated fairly. I would be happy to share with any interested party our specific policies and procedures (which have been developed with input from multiple NGOs) and welcome any suggestions to improve these procedures. The information provided in our CSR Report and our Dig Deeper paper “Beyond Factory Walls: Engaging Workers & Strengthening Communities” provides great detail about our overall process. If after reading these publications you are looking for more, feel free to email us at csrinfo@timberland.com.

Mike Carceo | 10/28/2009

Improving available services is an excellent way to improve a factory worker's quality of life and opportunities for betterment. However, I think it is vital that the workforce has a say in what services it wants or needs. The company cannot just blindly put together a benefits package that may or may not fit the needs of its employees. Research, roundtable discussions, and open forums need to take place so the company can get a real grasp on what thier workforce is looking for. Wages alone cannot improve someone's quality of life. If a company increases wages but takes away other benefits it will probably be a net loss for the employee in the end. I do think it is the company's responsibility to provide services to help thier emplyees improve at skills and learn new ones as well. There should be programs put in place to help the workforce develop new skills and it is then on them to take advantage of them and improve thier chances of overall betterment and brighter future.

Beth Holzman, CSR Strategy & Reporting Manager at Timberland | 10/28/2009

We view the many comments & questions here as an indication that people care, which Timberland is excited to see. These next thoughts come from my role as the person responsible for online dialogue. The intention of this dialogue is for several stakeholders to add voices and build a conversation driving to broader change beyond our one-voice, one-brand control; however, we also don't want to appear non-responsive to Timberland-specific questions. Let's address these first, with hopes to then move on to multi-stakeholder brainstorming for solutions to some of the very issues/concerns that have been raised - such as the disparity that exists between minimum legal wage and a fair wage in many developing countries. In the interest of keeping the posts to a reasonable length, we have prepared separate comments (forthcoming). We hope that by addressing these questions, more voices will enter the dialogue to talk about how to achieve the broader change that is needed.

Ballinger | 10/28/2009

Bangladeshi Garment Workers Struggling for 35 Cents an Hour [from National Labor Cmte, NYC]:
On Saturday, October 17, garment workers in Bangladesh joined by the National Garment Workers Federation (NGWF) led a protest demanding that the country's minimum wage be raised to 35 cents an hour. The current minimum wage in Bangladesh's garment industry is 1662 taka a month. This comes to just 11 ½ cents an hour! ($1.00 = 68.95 taka)

No one can survive on 11 ½ cents an hour, leaving the workers and their families trapped in abject misery. Hoping to climb out of misery and into poverty, the garment workers are asking that the minimum wage be raised to 35 cents an hour...

Trung Doan, protectVietworkers.com - Committee to Protect Vietnamese Workers | 10/28/2009

Would Timberland please respond? Some of the questions Ballinger asked, I'd ask too - for example, what does it think about bonus pay, would it have, or obtain, figures on enforcement of labor laws?

Ballinger | 10/27/2009

It should be pretty apparent by now why I started off by asking Timberland to debate me; in a real-time debate you cannot just let a question hang in the air. In this “Voices of Challenge” rolling-response format, many of my queries did not get a response: Could Timberland NOT ask supplier-factories to contact "host" governments about labor law enforcement numbers? Are you aware of the percentage of differing nationalities working in supplier factories in Taiwan and S. Korea? What CAN an ethical company do when inflation goes up to 25% as it did in Vietnam two years ago? (Or when it is fixed at $42 for ten years - also in Vietnam.) What about vertical re-integration and starting to make more of your own products (so you can pay a decent wage), rather than contracting-out 95% of your production? Recent research shows that Bangladesh's minimum wage is the most abysmally low in the region. Can't Timberland do what Counter Sourcing does and pay a bonus to those poor workers? What about doing "action-research" through local NGOs (which acts as basic legal literacy training)?
I would also like to raise the contract-work question. Do you track this phenomenon?

Leigh Anne Peckham | 10/26/2009

I think focusing on improving available services for factory workers is certainly a great way, but shouldn't be considered the best way, to improve their quality of life and opportunities for betterment. I think companies need to ask their employees directly what would improve their quality of life. In addition, I think that factory workers should regularly meet with their supervisors to discuss personal goals at the company and ask for feedback as to how the employee can reach these goals, and how well they are achieving these goals as time goes by. Furthermore, I think employees should also give feedback to the supervisors as to how effective they are leading the factory workers in their jobs.

Racheal Yeager, BSR | 10/25/2009

I agree Ari. The discussion on human rights, fair working conditions (including wages), and improved environmental practices by companies and their suppliers that is taking place on this site is critically important. As Ballinger indicates, however, real movement in this area will require government engagement and collaboration among a large number of brand companies.

In the more immediate term, a brand like Timberland can contribute to ways of making factories not only places where workers are treated justly, but also places where people can access important information and services to improve their quality of life within and beyond the factory walls.

An example of such a program is the HERproject, BSR’s factory-based training program which educates female factory workers about their general and reproductive health. Timberland is a participant of this initiative, along with several other brands. HERproject is about two things: 1) using the workplace to deliver critical information and services to workers that communities or governments struggle to provide, and 2) creating linkages between that program and business value to build a management culture of sustained investment in workers’, especially female workers’, welfare.

In addition to providing critical information and services for vulnerable female workers, programs like HERproject also promote transparent dialogue between workers and factory management and between suppliers and brands. Education programs, on health and other topics, also contribute to workers’ empowerment, and our peer education model builds leadership skills too. These types of programs should not be considered “cart before the horse,” but rather integral components of improvement overtime for workers, suppliers, and brands.

Ari Short | 10/25/2009

I believe that improving the quality of life for factory workers goes a lot further than increasing available services. True, offering good benefits increases employee satisfaction, but does it empower them to make a personal commitment for change? I am not so sure. Improving the conditions of the workplace, and offering monetary rewards is no doubt the beginning of the process, because you must first satisfy their essential needs. The next step is to give factory workers the feeling of belonging in the company, a feeling that they can make a difference. I believe that the Path of Service program does just that, because it brings the entire company together to achieve a common goal (planting a million trees, etc.) That is a great service offered outside the workplace, but what can be done inside the factory to increase morale and productivity besides physical improvements? Such things as improving communication and relationships between factory workers and managers may make a difference.

Jeremy Larner 10.24.09 | 10/24/2009

Gave me the creeps to read "Group Discussion"... an account of workers at a Brazilian apparel factory who agreed that "services" were more important than pay raises. As if these were mutually contradictory! There is no mention of who initiated the discussion or posed such choices, but it's impossible to believe that sub-poverty workers would speak freely in their company. The fact that the lone dissident "changed her mind" afterwards seems to speak to the social pressures involved, rather than the logic of the "services" position. Think about it: suppose you (privately) were offered the same choice.

Ballinger | 10/23/2009

No doubt "their intentions are in the right place" but workers deserve more money (and, in a somewhat utopian vision, bosses that will sit down and bargain with them in dignity). This doesn't sit easily with the contracting-out model. How can Timberland go back to a supplier that just won an order with the lowest bid and push for a higher wage? It cannot. Where Timberland is seeking "input, critique and validation" it is constrained by the Corporate Social Responsibility paradigm which is all about setting (non-wage, non-bargaining) standards for suppliers & following up with monitoring. I can say without hesitation that this has imroved some areas such as getting rid of hazardous chemicals - clearly no small matter - but at least 80% of these workers are in authoritarian states where advocacy for a higher minimum wage and the right to bargain could land them in jail. At the factory level, demanding better wages or conditions may lead to those brave enough to agitate losing their jobs. This is why I suggested some alternative approaches which Timberland has yet to comment upon. I believe - as Silence Dogood does - that the Timberland CSR staff "are committed to exploring new strategies – from all directions". Maybe there is now an internal discussion about 1) getting suppliers to request labor law enforcement info from "host" governments; 2) vertical re-integration and starting to make their own products, rather than contracting-out 95% of the company's production; 3) doing "action-research" through local NGOs (which acts as basic legal literacy training); 4) gather (and share) info on Thai, Vietnamese, &c. workers in the Korean and Taiwanese factories... and paying restitution to those workers cheated by unscrupulous labor contractors. These are a few things which I suggested that got no response. Having "greater public input, with broader engagement and discussion" should lead to something concrete - like a considered response to some of the points I've raised.

Silence Dogood | 10/23/2009

My guess is that they’re hoping for greater public input, with broader engagement and discussion; No surprise there seeing that this is a public forum. It's constructive to get input, critique and validation from many contributors with varied viewpoints on these related matters. I found the Timberland responses to indicate that they are committed to exploring new strategies – from all directions – as well as interested in learning more about your strategies. It certainly seems their intentions are in the right place: ....................."We're also interested to hear from others about successful projects they've employed and lessons learned." (Colleen Von Haden, Timberland | 10/20/2009)……............"We wanted to start with opening the conversation up to all, as no idea should go unheard. So let's discuss, let's hear everyone's ideas to do what we agree is needed." (Colleen Von Haden (Timberland) | 10/15/2009)................"We want to learn from this dialogue – not simply for the sake of commenting back and forth – but more importantly, for us to incorporate feedback into our programs and strategies so they – and the lives of workers, in this case – can continually improve. Please continue to provide examples of different approaches – we’re eagerly listening." (Beth Holzman, Timberland | 10/17/2009)

Ballinger | 10/23/2009

I have been trying to get something like a dialogue going, which is very difficult given that we're not on the same page at all. I admit that throwing some intemperate posts in the direction of CSR-efficacy doesn't further the goal of dialogue, but please understand that Timberland folks have just not been responsive to many points that I've raised (will gladly enumerate in bullet-point format should anyone like to see). Bear in mind that this attempt at dialogue goes against my activist instincts - back in 1996, I was accused of "trying split the anti-sweatshop movement" for arguing against sitting down with corporations. As I reflect on talks with workers in Cambodia several months ago (and Vietnam + Indonesia, 2008), I have to say that most of the same problems that showed up in my 1988 research still exist today. I did find a few strategies that worked, but Timberland doesn't seem to be interested in exploring these.

Silence Dogood | 10/22/2009

Wait a minute...In his last post, is Mr. B suggesting that Timberland and other for profit organizations need to spend their valuable time, energy and resources trying to improve the credibility of their CSR programs? Or worse yet debate him on already commonly held beliefs for protecting and championing worker rights?? The mere suggestion smacks of hypocrisy and is quite amusing.

Ballinger | 10/21/2009

AdAge.com -- Corporate social responsibility is a hybrid PR/branding program that attempts to convert compliance into goodwill. Long Live Corporate Social Responsibility -- Posted by Tim Sanders on 09.17.09
-- I have several dozen of these snippets which I could post off-line somewhere. Just an indication of your credibility problem.

Stuart | 10/21/2009

Debate Ballinger

Ballinger | 10/21/2009

CSR "is currently enjoying across the board ubiquity" -- A sure sign that something's wrong?
Never do any of these "think pieces" address the issue of how effectively CSR "worked" to get shoe/apparel biz out of the sweatshop dog-house. It was breathtakingly swift. I did some extensive Lexis/Nexis work over the weekend and I found that "sweatshop" stories continued in the press - averaging well over a thousand per year - 1997-2008 & never dipping below 990. Big brands, however, disappeared from the stories around 1999, when CSR spending went into high gear.
02 Mar 2009 http://www.thefirmmagazine.com/features/488/The_fastest_route_to_profit_or_a_commercial_dead.html
The fastest route to profit or a commercial dead end?
Recycling the paper clips and making sure the lights are all turned off might tick the box of corporate social responsibility in some firms, but as more and more clients demand real engagement, The Firm tried to find out how to balance moral business practice with profit.

Ballinger | 10/21/2009

Nike as a top CSR company - what about 12 strikes @ their Vietnam-based suppliers in last 18 months? -- Associated Press "US edges Britain in study of sustainable companies"
By BRADLEY S. KLAPPER , 01.28.09 The United States may be mired in recession, but it still has more large companies best suited for sustainability than any other nation, according to
a study released Wednesday.

The Global 100 list compiled by Canadian magazine Corporate Knights and New
York-based investment research firm Innovest Strategic Value Advisors Inc.
aims to measure which companies manage environmental, social and governance
risks better than their competitors, making them safer long-term bets.
Amazon.com Inc. (nasdaq: AMZN - news - people ), The Coca-Cola Company
(nyse: KO - news - people ), Intel Corp. (nasdaq: INTC - news - people ),
Dell (nasdaq: DELL - news - people ) Inc., Nike Inc. (nyse: NKE - news -
people ) and the Walt Disney Company (nyse: DIS - news - people ) were among
the 20 American firms that made the list.

Ballinger | 10/21/2009

Who is going to chase the hucksters out of your CSR movement?
The 7 Lessons to Avoid Brand Damage... FREE OF CHARGE CRO Magazine webinar... Learn state of the art practices from leaders of the GFTN, WWF, Domtar and MS&L Worldwide
http://video.webcasts.com/events/pmny001/viewer/index.jsp?eventid=32282

Monika Aring, Senior Consulstant, The Conference Board and owner of Promise In Action Enterprises | 10/21/2009

I think that for business to thrive, companies need thriving societies. Otherwise, there are no consumers to buy the products. After all, each factory's workforce wears two hats: one is the worker hat, the other is the consumer hat! One company working by itself can make little or no impact on a thriving society. Many companies working together have the clout to help bring about thriving societies. What makes a thriving society? Most basic of all is integrity, in my view. I have noticed that life works when agreements are honored. Government must honor its agreements with citizens. And factories must honor their agreements with their workforce and with the Government - all the way down the supply chain. There must be consequences if agreements are not honored - something that regulation and assessment make possible. Secondly, without a living wage paid to the workforce in supply chain factories, it's hard for governments to earn enough tax revenues to provide for the services Timberland (and other firms') workforce needs, such as good health care, clean water, good education for children, good training for adults, and so on. So I would encourage Timberland to do three things: 1) pay living wages and 2) find ways to put pressure on governments in their supply chain countries to honor their agreements and 3) enroll and enlist other companies to join them in a particular country so as to have more impact, and clout. At The Conference Board, we're developing a project that aims to do # 3. Timberland and other companies probably know that the Governments of their supply chain countries are trying very hard to get foreign direct investment. Why should Timberland stay in a country that does not enforce labor and environmental laws? I think companies like Timberland have a real opportunity to act together to put pressure on a country to provide the public goods workers want. At the same time, government leaders should insist that companies working in their country honor their commitments. If companies try this dialogue on their own with a government, their voice will be weak. If Timberland creates a chorus of voices, there will be a very big impact.

Ballinger | 10/21/2009

Well, we're sort of back to square one, Colleen. No one could doubt your passion and enthusiasm about really rigorous assessment + going outside the factory walls but, you've all but admitted that these activities merely enforce the standards that many workers feel are woefully inadequate. I wish that I had an answer for why NGOs haven't pushed to get minimum wages up (strikes and chronic "labor shortages" in China and Vietnam has accomplished this, to some degree). As I've described, we made this a key issue in Indonesia and the wage increased around 20% each year (1990-96): http://www.econ.yale.edu/seminars/develop/tdw04/harrison-040322.pdf On the migrant issue, I'm totally in agreement with Eva Jespersen: "Migration is not a problem that needs to be solved, it is a phenomenon that can be controlled..." & I'm impressed that you got on the Uighur issue with such alacrity. If you did find that some workers came unwillingly, what's the remedy? Sticky problem. Finally, on the limits to "assessment," what CAN an ethical company do when inflation goes up to 25% as it did in Vietnam two years ago? You know that the number of strikes jumped to over 750 in 2007, with 85% of those in foreign-investment factories.

Colleen Von Haden, Timberland | 10/21/2009

Jeff, you and the Vietnam Labor Watch are absolutely correct in describing the typical and common conditions of workers in developing countries, the prominent use of migrant workers, and the disparity that exists in many of these countries between the legal minimum wage and what many see as a decent living wage. These realities are the very reasons why Timberland invests significant time and resources to ensure our Code of Conduct is adhered to using primarily our internal team of passionate skilled assessors and why we spend 2-5 days with each factory assessment to ensure we hear the workers voices and work with management to uncover root causes and build management systems to ensure sustainable corrective actions. Ask any one of our suppliers, we spend more time with them and overall require more of them than any other buyer. Our team of assessors works tirelessly to change mindsets and drive lasting change. But let's talk specifics: we currently have eight (8) suppliers in Taiwan and eight (8) in S. Korea – many of whom have been suppliers of ours for multiple years. In our last round of assessments only four (4) of these suppliers were found to have serious issues such as excessive working hours, all of which have implemented corrective action plans to improve these identified issues. These suppliers are put on an increased assessment schedule and provided with additional remediation assistance such as better production planning by our team. The remaining fourteen (14) suppliers were found to be in full compliance with not only our stringent Code requirements but also with respect to our "beyond compliance" requirements such as systems to ensure workers voices are heard and to ensure ongoing compliance with our Code; and two (2) of the suppliers in Taiwan achieved our highest rating two years consecutively. Our CSR Report provides more detail on what is covered by our Code, our monitoring process, and scoring system.

With respect to migrant workers in our 100+ factories in China, yes it is commonplace (roughly 90% in fact), which is why we focus a significant part of our assessment process on ensuring that their rights are upheld, their dignity respected, and their voices heard. We recently went through an exercise with the Workers Rights Consortium to ensure that we had adequately addressed the issues, needs, and recent concerns of Uighur migrant workers in our factories. For Timberland, this migrant workforce is only employed by 3 factories and we had our team revisit the policies and procedures surrounding the unique needs of this workforce with these factories to triple confirm best practices. A migrant work force is very prevalent in our industry and many others, and as pointed out by the United Nations Development Programme in their new report released October 8, 2009, an important means for enhancing human development since migration most often raises the individual's standard of living and improves the prospects for a good life (only if and when they are treated fairly, protected, and employed under free will). "Migration is not a problem that needs to be solved, it is a phenomenon that can be controlled," says Eva Jespersen, Deputy Director and Head of the NHDR Unit. The report states that the effects of migration are most often positive for the individual and the migrant's family with regard to both the county of origin and the destination country. Families obtain additional income from remittances sent by migrants, and the increase in consumption spurs the economy in the country of origin. (Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Finland, 10/12/2009). http://formin.finland.fi/public/default.aspx?contentid=172701&nodeid=15148&contentlan=2&cultu re=en-US

I am very confident in our monitoring program and the ability of our team to ensure lasting improvements for the workers producing Timberland products globally no matter where they are located and I'm also very proud of the "beyond factory walls" programs that we've implemented and will continue to implement where community needs are identified. I'm also 100% in agreement that the minimum legal wage in many countries is lower than it should be and I'm puzzled by the lack of NGO push on governments to do the "right thing" for the hard working people of their countries. When OSHA came along, business cried out that these requirements were going to put companies out of business - but it didn't. When every business is required to do something by law, businesses figure out a way to continue to make a profit. We're interested to know if (and how) brands are engaging local governments where they source from. Timberland has only recently engaged in public policy of any kind - specifically in the climate arena. We're new to these policy discussions, and we haven't yet found a platform where brands or NGOs are engaging with local governments on the wage issue. I believe the Asia Floor Wage initiative aims to do this, and would like to learn more. Or does anyone have any other examples?

Ballinger | 10/20/2009

On the "resources" question, we must point out the high margins in your industry, resulting from the poverty (or below) level of wages. How else to explain the Financial Times columnist writing this? "Take Nike. The US company has just agreed to pay a staggering €320m ($474m) to become the equipment supplier to the French Football Federation for a 7½-year period...[and] is acquiring for £285m, for the rights to kit out the England team." (read the entire nauseating article here: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/9a136fae-e40d-11dc-8799-0000779fd2ac.html ) and, what about colleges and universities? Money to schools "staggering" and "unfathomable" in the words of those administrators who negotiate the deals! 9/19/07 - "Schools reap benefits from shoe giants" http://www.seattlepi.com/huskies/332431_shoes20.html
We know that Timberland is not active in the endorsement or licensing areas, but you're selling the same stuff & producing in the same countries.

Trung Doan, protectVietworkers.com, Committee to Protect Vietnamese Workers | 10/20/2009

Colleen Von Haden says Timberland "don't have the large resources you might suspect". With 1 important resource you have, ie. your role as a large buyer, you can do a lot. In particular, you can obtain answers to important questions already asked, such as: Why are workers in your supplier factories not paid a living wage? How many foreign workers are in your supplier factories? Are some there against their will? Has each factory nation signed ILO Convention 81 on labour Inspection and, if so, obtain its recent report to ILO?

Ballinger | 10/20/2009

I'm glad that you mentioned Bangladesh, Colleen, because it figures prominently in a "Living Wage" report released earlier this month - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8294531.stm "In Bangladesh, for example, the floor [living] wage is more than six times the value of the current minimum wage..." That's rather shocking, isn't it? Look at what one company did...
excerpt: Last month, Counter Sourcing paid its first bonuses to some 2,700 garment workers at the Pride Group factory in Dhaka, Bangladesh. Each received about $3.50 above the typical monthly wage of $25. -- February 13, 2008 -- New York Times - A ‘Fair Trade’ Approach to Licensed College Gear
The Counter Sourcing website claims that 10% of sales $$$s will go into a living wage fund! Timberland's strategy of working through groups like CARE & a local NGO cannot realy compete with paying these desperate workers a few hundred taka more each month.

Ballinger | 10/20/2009

I didn't suggest that you were sourcing from Malaysia. If you re-read my comment, I only pointed you to a report about a Nike-producing factory there. What I asked ("Do you know numbers of foreign workers in Timberland-producing factories?") was not responded to. I believe that you have over twenty supplier factories in Taiwan and S. Korea & most garment/shoe factories there are notorious for foreign-worker problems; they use, cumulatively, 650,000 foreign workers. (Please see Fortune magazine article here, which called it "debt bondage"): http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2003/01/20/335632/index.htm More recently, reports in China's own media suggest that about a third of Uighurs working in factories in the export-processing areas don't go of their own free will. While "trafficking in persons" suggests transport across national boundaries, I would think that any coercion would be anathema to Timberland (http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/n.php?n=the-uyghurs-struggle--smart-power-2009-07-29 ). Since Timberland sources from over 100 factories in China, I would think that it is a rather urgent matter to look into.

Colleen Von Haden, Timberland | 10/20/2009

We agree in the power of on-the-ground collaboration with local NGOs in the communities where we manufacture products - we've experienced it first-hand. We are extremely proud of the now self-sustaining, self-funding project that we seeded in Bangladesh in collaboration with CARE and local NGO MAMATA to provide the trade zone and community with microfinance and healthcare improvements. It is the success and power of this program, as well as the learnings we have experienced at our factory in the Dominican Republic that leave us with a strong desire to help workers through locally-owned projects. (See our Dig Deeper paper for more details.) We know we can't do this work alone. We need to collaborate with local organizations whose mission, makeup, and networks incorporate workers' voices and families directly. We don't have the large resources you might suspect - but we are looking to invest in future collaborations that will help us create lasting and tangible benefits. We are very interested in hearing from this dialogue community on what local organizations we should consider. We're also interested to hear from others about successful projects they've employed and lessons learned.

Beth Holzman, Timberland | 10/19/2009

Compliance with Timberland’s Code is a necessary condition of doing business within a factory. It is important that our assessors measure factories' compliance and that factories continue to make improvements in working conditions over time. There are approximately 247,000 factory workers in roughly 300 factories worldwide that produce Timberland products (in addition to 1,900 workers at our wholly-owned Dominican Republic factory, which is subject to the same compliance and assessments). You can find a list of our factories (updated quarterly) at www.earthkeeper.com/csr (see the Reporting page; to clarify from previous comment in this dialogue, we do not source from Malaysia). Regardless of order volume, value, or factory size, we assess and work on remediation plans with all factories that produce our products because we believe that all workers deserve to work and live with dignity. We focus heavily on the treatment of migrant or minority workers because we feel it is important that Timberland’s business ensures their rights are equally upheld and that there are no barriers for embracing their individual customs, dietary needs, religions, etc. Our assessment process aims to protect and empower all workers to ensure they are afforded effective means to communicate and voice grievances.

Ballinger | 10/19/2009

I was pleased to see Colleen express interest in my suggestion that small projects can have a high impact, as compared to expensive corporate CSR campaigns & Code of Conduct tweaking. In 1989, I received a small Human Rights grant from USAID/Jakarta (just over $20,000). Workers researched compliance with minimum wage (86 cents a day, at the time) and published findings - over 45% non-compliance. We were pleasantly surprised that local media ran with the story for weeks, even doing some of their own investigative reports. Eventually, the repressive Suharto regime felt compelled to chastise recalcitrant employers. Since many of the worst offenders were producing for rich markets abroad, it drew some international media attention, too. (Would you be surprised to hear that Nike's guy in Jakarta called USAID to complain? Or, that Free Market idealogues responded that Indonesia shouldn't even HAVE a minimum wage?) The important thing is that compliance improved dramatically. If you think that this is something that happened two decades ago with no relevance today, I suggest that you check out what's happening to migrant workers in many countries where Timberland products are made. Do you know numbers of foreign workers in Timberland-producing factories? Look at a short video report about a Malaysian factory here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Qzm7MCusGM - award-winning Australian TV news coverage.

Thuyen Nguyen, Vietnam Labor Watch | 10/19/2009

NO. A living wage is the only decent thing that Timberland can offer to its Asian factory workers. The multinationals like Timberland and Nike are hoping that focusing soft issues like 'improving services', they can sound like responsible corporate citizens without having to do anything significant.

The reality in Asia is that these factories making Timberland products are hellish place to work with typical work day of 12 hrs day and slave-labor wages. It's a place where poor, desperate young women who decided that they are going to sacrifice a few years of their young bodies because they have no other choice. Once they no longer can take it, they would just leave and would not be any better than when they started. These Timberland factories in Asia offer their workers - no opportunities for improvement, no chance for saving.

In the West, Timberland and its CSR folks can continue to talk about soft issues like improving services and quality of life. Because for Westerners like us, these are complex issues. But for Asian workers who work 12 hrs day, 6 days a week for $80 per month in grueling conditions, the simple answer is Timberland just pay me a decent, living wage.

Thuyen Nguyen
for Vietnam Labor Watch
HCMC, Vietnam

Beth Holzman, Timberland | 10/17/2009

It’s great to see so much engagement here. We’ve named this dialogue “Voices of Challenge” because as a business that aims to be responsible, we face many complex challenges. Our stakeholder discussions always have three components: 1) Inform – share information and educate one another; 2) Inspire – learn together and consider alternative approaches; 3) Engage - ultimately convene a group of experts to tackle one particular issue, looking at root causes and considering tangible ways we can create change. We don’t claim to be perfect and are looking to learn from others. We also want to be sure stakeholders understand how and why we have constructed our programs. Our Code of Conduct work, for example, has shifted from an audit/ checklist approach to assessments where we put workers at the center of the process. Compliance with our Code (see www.timberland.com/csrreport for the full document) is a must for doing business in a factory. But, we know that workers don’t just exist within the factory walls. That’s why we involve them in the assessments – giving them a voice and opportunity to share experiences firsthand. (See our Dig Deeper paper for more details). Bottom line, we want Timberland’s presence in a factory to create fair, safe, and non-discriminatory conditions that help improve workers’ lives. We want the community where that factory operates to be better off because of our business. Voices of Challenge is designed to help us evaluate and raise the bar for these – and other brands’ – approaches. We want to learn from this dialogue – not simply for the sake of commenting back and forth – but more importantly, for us to incorporate feedback into our programs and strategies so they – and the lives of workers, in this case – can continually improve. Please continue to provide examples of different approaches – we’re eagerly listening.

Eric Lee | 10/17/2009

Debate Ballinger.

Teri in Minneapolis | 10/16/2009

If CSR is not bogus, something fluffy that sounds nice but that is in fact a PR cover up for blatant disregard for worker rights, then Timberland should not be afraid to debate Jeff Ballinger!

Rudy Porter | 10/15/2009

Why does Timberkegapdasborne keep moving production to places they know do not enforce basic worker rights, and then feign concern that worker rights are not enforced, followed by some phony tree planting program so they can advertise the company as "green"? Timberland should debate Jeff Ballinger.

John Trumpbour, Harvard Law School | 10/15/2009

The corporate media often give flattering portraits of CSR initiatives in footwear and apparel, but many workers still lack voice and a meaningful vehicle to improve their lot. Sub-poverty wages thus persist in this industry. I would welcome the opportunity to hear a dialogue and debate between Jeff Ballinger and the proponents of CSR on better ways to move forward.

Trung Doan, protectVietworkers.com - Committee to Protect Vietnamese Workers | 10/15/2009

No, service improvement is not the best way. In Vietnam, the ruling regime is drafting a rule requiring foreign employers to pay 1% of wages into a union fund. Part of this huge money pool will be pilfered by the corrupt regime. Some will go to improvement of services provided by state-run Communist Party branches called "unions". But would this help workers to make ends meet? Would it help them to organise and form their own, real, unions?
Asking questions like this is an interesting approach. But a more interesting and educational thing would be for Timberland and knowledgeable people like Jeff Ballinger to debate publicly.

elaine cohen - CSR consulant and reporter | 10/15/2009

Whilst improving services for employees is important, the question of whether it should be the focus is relative to (1) existing conditions (2) level of wages and associated terms and conditions (3) general observance of employee rights including legal requirements and (4) training and development opportunites for employees.
CSR is by definition beyond compliance. Improving services is probably, in most cases, beyond compliance. Buy before you can get beyond compliance, you need to be compliant. We know that there are many instances of non-compliance in outsourced factories. So the focus should be first and foremost to introduce those processes, check and balances as are required to ensure absolute 100% watertight compliance with all regulation in every factory.. Once this is complete, the Company must assess and priotitize a range of improvement programs of which improving services is one. In all cases, endeavours to go beyond compliance will yield improvement in business results over the long term.

Colleen Von Haden (Timberland) | 10/15/2009

Thank you all for the energy around this topic! Like you, we care deeply about the potential for positive change around human rights issues, and this dialogue is a great way for us to move forward and learn more.

I completely agree that we need a multi-stakeholder approach to make scaled improvements. In the meantime, our SLE approach does what we can on our own (and sometimes with one or more other brands). We would love to see a solution for a fraction of one company's csr spending for one year and look forward to hearing more (we haven't yet found any platform to do so). Would love your ideas on how to get there.

The World Conference Board is one organization that offers potential for doing just that -- we were approached by them to engage in a public-private collaboration to work toward greater regulations and enforcement on human rights issues and other challenges faced by international supply chain businesses, but had to make the hard choice to not pursue participation due to budget constraints.

In response to the majority of comments here, I do like the idea of taking this conversation at some point to another venue -- but first start broad with capturing ideas and thoughts, then identify the key participants to continue in the construction of solutions that result in large scale public-private action and impact. It's hard to do all of that through a comment box. We wanted to start with opening the conversation up to all, as no idea should go unheard. So let's discuss, let's hear everyone's ideas to do what we agree is needed - multi-stakholder approach and scaled improvement.

Max White | 10/15/2009

I strongly recommend you choose the intellectually honest position, and debate Mr. Ballinger. MNC's must accept responsibility in a meaningful way, rather than just symbolically. Otherwise, a corporation's labor policy is simply its PR position.

Vancouver | 10/15/2009

Why be afraid of debate. It can only help you clarify your position?

Your Name Jeremy Larner | 10/15/2009

If Timberland is serious about conditions of Asian workers, you will debate Jeff Ballinger publicly and respond precisely to the facts he cites. Otherwise, I'm inclined to take all this as (perhaps more subtle) PR fluff, not unlike the practices of apparel corporations who advertise "human rights campaigns," but award contracts solely on basis of low-bid and do not police the practices of their subcontractors. (And hire the likes of Michael Jordan as advertising reps...)

Jim Keady, Educating for Justice, Inc. | 10/15/2009

If you feel 100% sure of your current position on CSR, you should have no qualms about debating Jeff Ballinger publicly. What are you afraid of?

Peace, Jim Keady

Gavin | 10/15/2009

I agreed, Timberland should debate Mr. Ballinger publicly

Keith A. Busch | 10/15/2009

Why not debate these issues publicly?

Peter Waterman Global Labour Charter Project The Netherlands | 10/15/2009

Debate Ballinger publicly, Timberland!

No ifs, buts, or other avoidance tactics.

Only a straightforward and public debate will leave you with any face at
all, at least amongst critically-minded labour specialists worldwide.

George Polisner, alonovo.com | 10/15/2009

I view the labor component of the SR framework as a house. The foundation must be contextually reasonable compensation and benefits, health/safety of workers, workforce stability and freedom to organize. Services are the exterior of the house -important -but if the foundation is tenuous or non-existent, the services are not viable.

I'd greatly enjoy a debate between Jeff Ballinger and the Timberland folks.

Fasching-Gray | 10/15/2009

I would welcome a debate between Timberland representatives like Colleen Von Haden and Mr. Ballinger.

Ballinger | 10/15/2009

Want to know why I'm so adamant in my rejection of orthodox CSR approaches? Because I have seen (and done) things that actually work: "participatory action research" involving dozens - even hundreds - of survey-researchers and pressure on governments to raise misery-level wages while addressing the "enforcement gap". These things are possible for a fraction of the cost of ONE company's CSR spending for ONE year.

Ballinger | 10/15/2009

Want to know why I never last more than about fifteen minutes in conversations with corporations? Because you're in total denial, thinking you can prettify the local landscape w/ the latest CSR sustainability distraction. In fact, your production is located in the most corrupt and repressive places on earth (OK, well, not in Burma). Who decides where your stuff is produced? Your suppliers - the Taiwanese & Korean multinationals that are really not interested in locating where workers have rights that are enforced. Do you have alternatives? Yes! New Balance decided to keep hundreds of workers in the U.K. and here in New England (about 50 miles from Timberland's HQ). They produce their own stuff & got the labor-cost differential (China compared to Massachusetts) down to $2.50 a pair of shoes. Pretty impressive. Do you know the Zara/Inditex story? Wildly successful & HUGE apparel company. What percent of their production is still done in N. Spain & Portugal? Want to continue this? I promise to read all of your "Dig Deeper" stuff if someone from Timberland will debate me, either on-line or at the BCCC http://www.bcccc.net/ or Sloan, Tuck, HBS...

Colleen Von Haden (Timberland) | 10/14/2009

Timberland agrees that audits for the sake of auditing won't result in meaningful or lasting improvements in the lives of workers in the supply chain. We have shifted our monitoring process to focus on worker engagement and empowerment. Our goal is to go beyond factory walls and to strengthen communities. We aim to ensure that workers live and work in "Sustainable Living Environments" - an approach that considers the fact that paying higher wages sometimes isn't the answer. You can read more about our rationale in our "Dig Deeper" paper (click on Report button on left navigation). We're excited to see stakeholders weighing in - whether it be on Sustainable Living Environments, consumer relevance, letters to governments, MNCs lobbying for international labor standards, or more - we look forward to continuing the conversation.

Liz Umlas, independent researcher | 10/14/2009

Jeff Ballinger touches on a key issue: “real regulation”, or the role of local governments in protecting workers’ rights. The suggestion that Timberland (and other multinational companies) should require suppliers to write their governments and press them on the specifics of labor inspections, for example, is an interesting one. Why stop there? Let’s look at another big picture question – the influence of MNCs themselves on host governments. To what extent might lobbying (by MNCs) in favor of upholding international labor standards bring about what others are calling a paradigm shift? We’ve seen a few, scattered examples of companies challenging their industry organizations (perhaps more in the area of environment/climate change than in labor) and taking positions that are at odds with traditional corporate lobbying but in sync with some of the things civil society groups have long called for. It would be great to hear more discussion of this, by Timberland and others.

Ballinger | 10/14/2009

Searching through the vast output of "corporate social responsibility" initiatives, proposals and commentary, two things jump out: denigration of the idea of "union as solution" and a quite-small collection of promising ideas. Foremost among the latter is the suggestion by City University of NY business professor, Prakash Sethi that multinationals and their contractors need to make "restitution for years and years of expropriation of wages of workers who are at the bottom of the food chain and are least able to defend themselves." This simple idea could usher in a paradigm-shifting chain reaction. The big buyers would be moved beyond accepting blame to accepting responsibility - including financial liability - and courageous workers who stood up to abusive bosses would (better late than never) win cash-in-hand payments for tens of thousands of those cheated workers. Most importantly, perhaps, would be the resultant pressure on recalcitrant "host" governments that failed to protect workers in the first place.

Another idea worthy of further exploration is the approach of the Worker Rights Consortium, the only monitoring operation of any size that has remained out of the grasp of corporate overseers. (Small local operations such as Central American human rights groups COVERCO and EMIH do admirable work, but the impact is limited) The WRC has propounded a plan that would steer university bookstore buyers in the direction of "better" garment shops (college-logo apparel is a $2.3 billion industry). Though students have won agreements at more than two dozen schools, it is difficult for the WRC to recommend even a small number of "better" suppliers - mostly due to the lack of real collective bargaining.



Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-ballinger/the-corporate-social-resp_b_46906.html

Jeff Ballinger, activist w/o portfolio | 10/14/2009

In a 2007 interview CEO Jeffrey Swartz mused about his desire to “seduce consumers to care” so that his new CSR report is not mere “corporate cologne”. Probably, consumers are too busy with their Facebook profiles and the like. My experience in Asia leads me to believe that engagement may be forthcoming if Timberland would change both the target audience and the information presented.

First, fire all the “social audit” parasites. Tracking changes in worker-to-toilet ratios and compliance with fire-extinguisher-placement guidelines can go to the back burner. Think about ways to empower the locals working in and living near your supplier factories. You can do this by requiring all suppliers to write to the national governments in all 35 countries you source from.

These letters should ask:

Worker Rights – Has country signed ILO Convention 81 (Labour Inspection)? If so, when is the last time a report was sent to Geneva? How many labour inspectors? How many factory visits last year? Number of violations found. Number of prosecutions started. Number of back pay awards.

Environmental – Inspection statistics (factories visited, citations, types of hazardous waste). Plus, bureaucratic chain-of-command: names of responsible local officials and who s/he reports to.

Post these results on your “CSR” website in English and the local languages and I guarantee that real regulation (instead of corporate “self-regulation”) will start happening. First, local journalists and legal-aid NGOs will pounce on the info (they may have been seeking same for years). Next, laggard “international agencies” may feel the need to do something besides planning for the next tri-partite conference. Finally – and most importantly – workers and people who live near the factories will be emboldened by all the attention and fashion their own self-help solutions.

People in the industry acknowledge, when they’re honest, that the default position of low-skilled manufacturing is exploitation and vicious cost-cutting. Similarly, Francis Fukuyama (from the political Right) describes the natural reaction of workers to Taylorist (low-skilled) production arrangements: “trade unions respond with demands that employers specify their duties…since (employers) could not be trusted to look out for the welfare of workers.”

Deborah Leipziger, Senior Consultant, Maplecroft | 10/13/2009

Companies need to ensure that workers in their supply chain receive access to services and decent wages, alongside adherence to basic labour standards. Consultation and collaboration with local stakeholders is helpful to understanding the local context and the needs of the community.

Timberland's work in Bangladesh to provide services to workers at the YoungOne factory in the Chittagong Export Processing Zone provides an excellent case study of how companies can work to address needs in the communities from which they source. Alongside CARE and the Local NGO MAMATA, Timberland is ensuring that workers have access to life skills training, health care, and access to credit.

Companies need to consider the sustainability of the communities from which they source, as well as sustainability issues within factories.

Thank you for your leadership and for including voices and views from workers in Brazil and China in this dialogue.