[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 147 (Tuesday, October 26, 1999)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E2189-E2190]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   TRIBUTE TO THE REEBOK SHOE COMPANY

                                 ______
                                 

                        HON. JOHN JOSEPH MOAKLEY

                            of massachusetts

                    in the house of representatives

                       Tuesday, October 26, 1999

  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, the role this nation plays in international 
conflicts, in providing humanitarian aid abroad, and in working to 
better the lives of all humanity is a constant matter of debate 
throughout the United States. I believe we do have an obligation to use 
our tremendous resources, know-how and prosperity to help uplift the 
difficult conditions many find themselves in throughout the world. And, 
I believe everyone in this nation can play a major part in that effort. 
Our influential corporations, while doing business abroad, can and 
should play a major role by acting responsibly and showing nations what 
it means to protect human rights, respect the rights of labor and 
respect the environment. Today, I'd like to highlight how one 
corporation--the Reebok shoe company--is working to make a positive 
difference in the lives of their workers. By allowing an objective 
third party labor rights organization to freely monitor the conditions 
of two of its factories in Indonesia, and make those findings public, 
Reebok has shown its desire for openness and cooperation, as well as a 
strong respect for the rights of the hard working people that make the 
company successful. I hope other major U.S. corporations will join in 
this effort.
  I am very proud that the Reebok Corporation is located in my 
congressional district in Massachusetts. I commend the enclosed piece 
describing the latest initiative by Reebok's Chairman and CEO Paul 
Fireman, which recently appeared in the Washington Post, and ask that 
it be included in the Congressional Record.

               [From the Washington Post, Oct. 17, 1999]

                Steps We Must Take on Third-World Labor

    (By Paul Fireman, chairman and CEO of Reebok International Ltd)

       Working conditions in overseas factories that produce 
     apparel for the U.S. market have become controversial, 
     putting companies on the spot for their decision to transfer 
     jobs to faraway countries. Here's how one company is 
     responding.
       Tomorrow, Reebok International Ltd. will become the first 
     company in the footwear industry to release an in-depth, 
     third-party examination of labor conditions in the factories 
     that make its products. We are not making the report public 
     because it shows our company in an unequivocally favorable 
     light--far from it. We are releasing it because we think it 
     is time to confront and accept responsibility for correcting 
     the sometimes-abusive conditions in factories overseas. We'd 
     like to encourage other multinational corporations to follow 
     suit.
       The report, titled Peduli Hak--Indonesian for ``Caring for 
     Rights''--assesses conditions in two factories, PT Dong Joe 
     Indonesia and PT Tong Yang Indonesia, which employ 
     approximately 10,000 workers to make our footwear. Reebok 
     doesn't own these factories; we selected them because they 
     account for more than 75 percent of our footwear production 
     in Indonesia, and have many similarities with other athletic 
     footwear factories in Asia.
       We chose the independent research and consulting firm Insan 
     Hitawasana Sejahtera (IHS) to perform the assessment, based 
     on the recommendation of leading human rights professionals 
     who credit it wtih impartiality and objectivity. To ensure 
     the team's independence, we guaranteed IHS full access to 
     factory records and workers, without intervention from Reebok 
     or the factory management. We also promised in advance to 
     make the IHS report public.
       The report, based on 1,400 hours spent inspecting the 
     plants, observing working procedures and interviewing workers 
     over a 14-month period, highlights some disturbing facts 
     about the working conditions there. For example, it 
     criticizes the way the factories' managers communicate with 
     workers, noting that most workers are functionally illiterate 
     and could not understand their rights under their collective 
     bargaining agreement or the details of their wage statements. 
     The report also found that it was more difficult for women 
     than men to obtain promotions or supervisory positions. It 
     faulted the factories' health and safety procedures--in 
     particular the procedures governing the use and handling of 
     chemicals. The report also describes steps the factories' 
     owners have been taking to rectify these problems.
       Some of the flaws the IHS inspectors uncovered presented 
     more of a challenge to correct than others. It is fairly 
     simple to improve inadequate lighting, or ventilation where 
     workers were being exposed to chemicals. And factories raised 
     pay to bring it in line with the government's determination 
     of a minimum living wage, since wages had not kept in line 
     with the rapid fluctuations in prices following Indonesia's 
     economic crisis. But it was altogether different when 
     inspectors reported that drums containing the remains of 
     hazardous substances were routinely left in areas accessible 
     to the public, in violation of local hazardous waste laws. 
     When the factory management changed its procedures to comply 
     with the law, members of the local community protested; they 
     had been collecting the drums and reselling them. In 
     response, the factories adopted policies to allow for local 
     collection of scrap metal and other non-hazardous waste 
     materials.
       Why did we undertake this potentially damaging workplace 
     assessment, and why was it important to make the results 
     public?
       The simple answer is because of the commitment we at Reebok 
     have made to respect the fundamental human rights of the 
     nearly 25,000 workers in Asia who produce our footwear. 
     That's why we placed a heavy emphasis on worker interviews 
     (950 workers answered surveys; 500 took part in confidential 
     interviews). It is also why we made Indonesian-language 
     copies of the report available to the workers, and why we 
     presented the report at a meeting with our footwear 
     contractors.
       But there is another reason, which is just as important. We 
     want to encourage other multinational corporations that may 
     be reluctant to open the doors of the factories manufacturing 
     their products to in-depth inspections. Quite simply, we want 
     to show that a detailed, critical report about factory 
     conditions can be disclosed without the sky falling. And we'd 
     like to change the attitude that has prevailed among many 
     companies for many years--that they do not have any real 
     responsibility for conditions in factories they do not own, 
     or for the treatment of workers who are not their employees.
       In 1992, Reebok adopted a code of conduct requiring that 
     the factories of our global suppliers comply with 
     internationally recognized human rights standards. Ever 
     since, we have incorporated that code of conduct into our 
     contractual agreements with factory owners and have monitored 
     their compliance.
       Despite these efforts--and those of some other companies--
     critics remained skeptical. They rightly point out that codes 
     of conduct are little more than window dressing unless there 
     is an effective process to monitor workplace conditions and 
     determine whether standards are being met.
       The Peduli Hak assessment was an attempt to address these 
     concerns. But many multinational corporations that produce 
     footwear, apparel and toys in the global marketplace remain 
     fearful; although many now have codes of conduct, they are 
     unwilling to undergo independent external monitoring, or 
     suffer the embarrassment and expense that exposing workplace 
     conditions might produce.
       This fear of monitoring is seen in the reluctance of many 
     companies to join the Fair Labor Association (FLA), which is 
     chaired by former White House counsel Charles Ruff. The FLA 
     has adopted procedures to accredit independent monitors who 
     will be qualified to inspect factories for compliance with a 
     Workplace Code of Conduct covering nine key areas: child 
     labor, forced labor, discrimination, harassment, freedom of 
     association,

[[Page E2190]]

     wages, health and safety, hours of work and overtime 
     compensation.
       Reebok and nine other companies (Adidas-Salamon AG, Kathie 
     Lee Gifford, Levi Strauss & Co., Liz Claiborne, L.L. Bean, 
     Nicole Miller, Nike, Patagonia, Phillips Van Heusen) have 
     agreed to participate in the FLA's monitoring program. While 
     this is a good beginning, it does not amount to the broadly 
     representative segment of the business community that any 
     monitoring program will require to be effective. Of course, 
     we hope the Peduli Hak assessment will benefit thousands of 
     workers in Asia--but we also hope that its publication will 
     encourage other companies to join us in seeking solutions to 
     substandard workplace conditions in the global economy.

     

                          ____________________