Marina Prieto, a Director of the Central American Women's Network (CAWN) and member of the Ethical Trading Initiative, made similar criticisms in her articles during this quarter. In one article she criticised the factory code and monitoring system developed by the Worldwide Responsible Apparel Production (WRAP). Originally the initiative of the American Apparel Manufacturers Association, WRAP has stated its dedication to "the promotion and certification or lawful, humane and ethical manufacturing throughout the world." 17 Now WRAP covers over 700 companies responsible for 85 percent of clothing sales in the US. More than 615 factories from 56 countries have registered to earn the 'WRAP Good Factory Seal of Approval.' 18 Prieto wrote that "many activists in Central America and elsewhere have pointed out serious flaws in the initiative's approach." She raised various points of concern, such as a lack of independence on its board, weak standards on some labour issues (especially those of specific concern to women workers), no public disclosure of monitor's findings, and the use of pre-arranged audits, so that companies might 'clean up' in advance.

CAWN published these concerns as WRAP became operative in El Salvador, thereby directly competing with a local civil society initiative headed by the non-profit Salvadoran Independent Monitoring Group (GMIES), which was established in 1996. 19 This was the first-ever civil society programme to conduct external monitoring of labour conditions in the Maquilas and has since monitored factories supplying both Liz Claiborne and the Gap. Prieto argued that, in contrast to WRAP, this initiative emphasises the importance of maintaining a regular presence at the factory, with regular visits and various channels for workers to contact the monitors, stresses the need for workers to get to know and trust the monitors, and to learn what their role is and insists on the right to publish at least some of their monitoring reports. She concluded that:

The WRAP system should not be allowed to become the standard in El Salvador and across Central America because it would lead to major labour rights violations being completely ignored. Confidential reports by private-sector monitors often fail to convey an accurate picture of conditions in the Maquilas, meaning that consumers in the North would be unable to discriminate between companies on ethical grounds. Workers and their organisations would lose the struggle to improve labour conditions. And with factory owners even forced to pay for monitoring, US companies and consulting firms would be the only clear winners.

The director of GMIES, Carolina Quinteros was therefore sceptical of the intent of WRAP and similar initiatives that are dominated by commercial interests in Northern countries:

Initiatives like WRAP reflect the intention of the big corporations to appropriate a concept that was created from activist movements in favour of human and workers' rights. The struggle for a code of conduct that reflects the responsibility of companies towards their workers... and the demand for a monitoring process that contributes to improving workers' conditions have been transformed into a business discourse. This discourse is closer to corporate public relations than to real undertakings towards workers and consumers.

Criticisms coming from representatives in the global South are particularly important given that most often the intended beneficiaries of initiatives such as WRAP are workers and communities in such regions. By October 2002, of the 12 board members of WRAP, none were from the South (most appeared to be US citizens). Meanwhile, apart from one consultancy in El Salvador, Reducción de Riesgos, by August 2002 all the auditors accredited to inspect and award factories this Seal were US accounting firms. It appeared that the only way Southern stakeholders could participate in WRAP was by endorsing its principles, rather than having a say in its work. By August 2002, 13 trade associations from the global South had done so. The involvement of other, non-commercial stakeholders appeared to be non-existent.

In December, a paper on a similar topic was published by the New Academy of Business. Reporting on research conducted with women's groups and trade unions in Nicaragua, the authors criticised current approaches to codes of conduct and their monitoring, while presenting the ideas of women workers for how progress could be made. The paper's title captured the key message from workers in the global South: "If you want to help us then start listening to us." 20 Given this critique, the extent of accountability of corporate citizenship initiatives to their intended beneficiaries becomes important. Rather than being the exception, WRAP may find itself amongst other initiatives having its accountability challenged.

contents © jem bendell, 2002. site design by tim concannon. hosting by futureconsiderations.com.