Human Rights Policy

From President McPherson--
February 25, 2000

PRINCIPLES

Apparel industry workers throughout the world deserve fair wages for their labor, and must not be subject to practices or conditions that threaten their health, safety, or welfare. I care deeply that fair conditions exist for the workers. I saw some of the problems firsthand as a Peace Corps volunteer in the 1960's in Peru, and again during the 1980's when I ran the U.S. foreign aid program.

In my opinion, lasting and meaningful reform is unlikely to occur unless

a) a sufficient number of colleges and universities combine their efforts,
b) independent monitoring of factory conditions is performed,
c) a standard code of conduct is developed for the apparel industry which will allow compliance to be measured,
d) manufacturers publicly disclose the location of their factories, and
e) any reform efforts engage both manufacturers and trade unions. Neither of these groups should dominate the reform effort, but they both have interests, perspectives, and expertise which are critical to improving working conditions.

BACKGROUND

The university community's limited role in the apparel industry makes it difficult, if not impossible, for colleges and universities alone to bring about lasting and meaningful improvements in working conditions.

Michigan State University receives about $1 million a year in license fees. MSU does not produce any goods itself, but provides licenses to manufacturers who produce and distribute goods bearing MSU's name, trademarks, or logos. In turn, many of these manufacturers subcontract the production or assembly of these goods to other factories located around the world. Many of these factories also produce large quantities of apparel which do not bear any licensed markings at all, but are ultimately distributed by clothing retailers to the general public. The approach taken by MSU is the approach used by nearly all universities.

THE FLA AND WRC

In May 1999, MSU became a charter member of the Fair Labor Association (FLA). The FLA grew out of the Apparel Industry Partnership (AIP), which was initiated by the White House in August 1996. The AIP brought together apparel and footwear companies, human rights groups, labor unions, religious organizations, consumer advocates, and universities. In a February 17, 2000 letter to university presidents, American Council of Education President Stanley Ikenberry noted that "one of the defining features of the FLA is the determination to encompass as broad a coalition as possible in support of its goals. It is a cooperative effort involving companies, human rights groups, labor rights groups, consumer groups, colleges and universities, supportive federal agencies, and others." The FLA is currently comprised of well over 100 colleges and university affiliates, 10 corporate affiliates, and 4 nongovernmental organization (NGO) affiliates.

Ikenberry's letter notes that the FLA has issued an extensive code of conduct for manufacturers, and that its charter requires both internal monitoring by companies and external monitoring by accredited independent monitors. Criteria for accrediting independent external monitors have been announced, and procedures for awarding accreditation are being developed. A pilot program to train local NGO's in foreign countries to act as external monitors is currently underway and being conducted under the auspices of the International Labor Rights Fund.

The FLA Board of Directors is comprised of 14 members: six manufacturer representatives, six NGO representatives, one university representative, and a chairman. Charles Ruff, former Watergate investigator and Clinton White House Counsel, is Chairman of the FLA. Sam Brown, former Ambassador and Head of Delegation of the United States to the Organization on Security and Cooperation in Europe, was named Executive Director of the FLA on February 7th.

On February 23, 2000, I received a letter from the Worker Rights Consortium [WRC], inviting the University "to join the [WRC] and participate in its founding conference this spring. The conference will be the defining event for the [WRC], a new organization intended to monitor the labor practices of manufacturers and apparel producers." The letter notes that the founding conference will be held on April 7th at New York University. Materials included with the letter indicate that the "WRC does not require a specific code of conduct, but it does require that member schools have a code that includes: a living wage, the right to organize and collective bargaining, protection of workers' health and safety, public disclosure, compliance with local laws, protection of women's rights, and prohibitions of child labor, forced labor, and forced overtime." Licensees would then be responsible for complying with these codes.

The WRC expects to set up an agency independent of garment industry interests and university licensing offices to receive and verify worker complaints. This agency will also "coordinate proactive investigations with local, independent non-governmental organizations and human rights groups with experience in the region."

The WRC governing Board is expected to have 12 members: three students selected by the United Students Against Sweatshops, three University administrators, and six representatives from the WRC Advisory Council. The WRC does not contemplate any manufacturer representation on either its Board or Advisory Council.

The WRC lists Brown University, Loyola University - New Orleans, Haverford College, and Bard College as members as of February 3, 2000. The University of Wisconsin, Indiana University, and the University of Michigan have conditionally joined the WRC, but without endorsing all of the provisions stated in the preliminary charter of the WRC.

The potential effectiveness of either the FLA or the WRC to effect meaningful reforms has been the subject of much debate across the country. For example, Nicholas Reville, a junior at Brown University involved in developing the WRC, stated in an e-mail sent to various campuses this week that the FLA "was not designed to verify compliance with [individual] college and university Codes of Conduct.

The FLA was created as a company and NGO partnership which developed a negotiated monitoring structure... The FLA is attempting to tack on colleges and universities to a system that was developed for voluntary monitoring. The WRC, on the other hand, was designed specifically for [individual] college and university Codes, and has mechanisms appropriate for this type of contract enforcement."

In another example of debate on this topic, Bama Athreya, the Director of Asia Programs for the International Labor Rights Fund (an FLA member), stated in an e-mail to the administration of the University of Pennsylvania, "Unlike the FLA, [the WRC] does not provide for any regular monitoring of factories, nor, despite the evident desire of students to empower developing-country advocates, does it provide them with a formal role in an ongoing process. It provides neither the resources nor training necessary for local advocates to permanently strengthen their role." Ms. Athreya further noted, "I have had enough experience working directly with sweatshop workers to believe the FLA will make a positive difference in their lives; I have a good deal more skepticism about the WRC."

THE "HARVARD STUDY"

Several universities with some of the largest trademark licensing programs (Harvard, Notre Dame, the University of California system, Michigan and Ohio State) have initiated an independent effort commonly referred to as the "Harvard Study." These schools, with assistance from outside consultants, plan to make a series of factory visits in different countries in the near future. The gathering of this information firsthand will provide all universities with important data to consider as they evaluate their long-term efforts to improve working conditions.

MSU EFFORTS AND DIALOGUE

Consistent with the principles set forth at the beginning of this letter, MSU is developing a survey of its current licensees to gather information relevant to their manufacturing operations. MSU also expects to require all renewed and future licensees to agree to disclose the location of their manufacturing operations, and to agree to manufacture MSU apparel under fair working conditions.

No clear path currently exists for MSU to follow in attempting to bring about reform in apparel industry working conditions, which must remain our overriding goal. MSU should probably maintain its present affiliation with the FLA for the time being. Some progress appears to be underway, but I am not sure if this is the full answer.

In addition, MSU will request to be an observer at the initial WRC meeting at NYU in April if this will be allowed. In any event, we will certainly closely monitor the WRC as it continues through its formation, as well as any other groups whose mission is to improve factory working conditions. It could well be that a new group will emerge from the Harvard Study or other discussions among the universities. In any case, MSU should align itself as appropriate with groups whose methods and membership are likely to lead to lasting and meaningful reforms.

These are significant concerns. I invite all members of the MSU community to express their views.

Peter McPherson, President

For links to background information on the topics discussed in President McPherson's letter go to our links page Working Conditions in the Apparel Industry: Other Resources.