Assessing the social impact of codes of practice

1. Assessing the social impact of codes of practice 3 year DFID funded project Kenya cut flowers, S.A. wine

2. Need for impact Assessment • Rhetoric of CSR – no evidence. Focus on ‘business case’, little on ‘development case’ • Increased questioning of effectiveness of voluntary codes of practice • No systematic, rigorous assessments of code impact, particularly from worker perspectives

3. Objectives • To carry out a systematic assessment of the social impact of the adoption of corporate codes of practice on different groups of workers, worker households and local communities • To inform policy-makers, donors, code bodies, NGOs, trade unions, and worker organisations of impact of codes • Challenge assumptions about relationship between compliance and impacts

4. Varying objectives • Code bodies – proving credibility? To improve impact, operational learning approach? • Donor funded – effectiveness of codes as development tool • Both tend to focus on upward accountability. Lack of ‘downward’ accountability to workers • Real participatory, empowering approach to impact assessment constrained by inherent limitations of power inequalities in global supply chains

5. Definition • I.A. is the ‘systematic analysis of the lasting or significant changes – positive or negative, intended or not – in people’s lives brought about by a given action or series of actions’. (Roche, 1999, p21) • Different kinds of impact considered • Worker material wealth (assets: e.g. wages, working hours etc) • Worker social wellbeing or human capital (no child labour, safe working conditions, no harsh treatment) • Worker empowerment or political capital (e.g. freedom to associate, no discrimination, worker-management relations etc) • Livelihood impacts on worker households and neighbouring groups • Impacts on secondary stakeholders (e.g. trade unions, buyers, NGOs, code bodies, government..) and governance of supply chain

6. Impact Chain • Inputs – Code adoption • Outputs/Activities – Changes in company policies and practices to comply (e.g. introduction of health and safety policy, observing the living wage, written contracts) • Outcomes – Safer working conditions? Higher wages? Able to join union or form worker committees? Upgraded housing? Improved worker treatment by managers? • Impacts – E.g. Improved worker health, education? Greater ownership of assets? Diversifying livelihood activities of household members?

7. Codes • KENYA: Kenya Flower Council, FPEAK, MPS, Max Havelaar, ETI Base Code • SOUTH AFRICA: ETI base code (wine pilot) and SA8000.

8. Methodology • Key comparison between rights and conditions for workers on code adopting companies and non-code adopting companies • Representative samples taken of each group and change monitored over time

9. Key steps (1) • Analysing stakeholders in the supply chain • Consultations re expected areas of impact • Contextual analyses – legislation, socio-economic background, code provisions etc • Obtaining industry data (postal survey?) and developing a typology (criteria for sampling) • Mapping distribution of code adoption

10. Key Steps (2) • Representative sampling of companies • Seeking access to C.A. and non C.A. companies – confidentiality, potential benefits (?) • Identifying worker priorities. Developing impact indicators through ‘participatory’ research • Analysis of convergence-divergence of worker priorities/code provisions

11. Key steps (3) • Questionnaire survey – random samples of workers to create baseline and then annual monitoring rounds. • To obtain information on areas of impact/ magnitude of changes. Questionnaire developed based on worker priorities. • Different groups of workers interviewed (male/female, permanent/seasonal)

12. Key Steps (4) • Supplier company manager interviews • Qualitative inquiry – household case studies, key informant interviews on causes of changes affecting workers and others (e.g. smallholders) • Analysis and dissemination of results

13. Issues • Access to companies difficult. Often dynamic, politicized environment (esp. Kenya) & research fatigue. • Workers may fear recriminations - Ethics of research? Trustworthiness of information? • Role of researchers – impact often unrecognised

14. Issues (2) • Attribution - complex. Context & industry trends v. important • S.A. - post-apartheid era, industry deregulation, opening up of international markets, extension of legislation to agriculture. Recent intro. Of minimum wage. • Changes in labour strategy often precede code. • Triangulation

15. Participatory dev. Of indicators (3) • ‘Participatory’ research methods – S.A. indiv. Vs group interviews. • Kenya – focus groups, 5 farms. Workers prioritised ability to make savings & investments (e.g. land, housing, children’s education) and immediate conditions (e.g. medical care, secure wages, equal employment opportunities etc). Access to non-code adopters suddenly difficult – 1 farm only. • S.A. Worker priorities in SA diverged from provisions.

16. Baseline findings • Kenya: delays, but survey data obtained, extending sample. Code-adopting co. workers better-off re wages, allowances, job security, H&S, HIV/Aids awareness, union membership) but need to extend sample. • S.Africa - permanent workers on CA farms better skills/education profile than counterparts and better employment conditions. Women experience less verbal abuse on CA farms, and fear less losing their job if their spouse loses his job. More workers represented on CA farms by worker committees.. Membership of trade unions low. CA farm seasonal workers not significantly better off. Widening gap between permanent and seasonal workforce at code adopting companies?

17. Monitoring cycle 1 – S.A. • Cash income increased at both (new legislation), more written contracts on both types of farms and more HIV/Aids education. Wages higher for seasonals (mainly women), more written contracts and better treatment on C.A., but still mainly treated as peripheral labour force. Little knowledge of codes.

18. Final thoughts • Multi-stakeholder initiatives (e.g. WIETA) hailed as creating greater Southern ownership, but still early days. Unpack ‘ownership’, co-optation? • Managers – external trading environment is key and buyer practice is undermining efforts. • Worker knowledge of codes negligible – further unpack (whether codes presented, explained, means of redress etc) • Some worker priorities not addressed by codes • SA – widening gap between permanent and seasonal workforce. Many of changes precede code introduction, and some also relate to new legislation (e.g intro. of minimum wage).

19. More info.. • www.nri.org/NRET: • Methodology Report (2001), Baseline Report, (2002). • DFID presentation, (2002), Oxfam DIP article (forthcoming), Review of experience to date in impact assessment and ethical trade. (forthcoming). • Concepts and methodology paper (forthcoming). • Final reporting March 2005.