ETI Alleged Code Violation
Investigation Guidelines

November 2001

• Preamble
• The Guidelines
• Flow Chart
• See also...
• Footnotes
   
• download this document as a PDF
  (Acrobat) file (40kb)
   

Preamble

From time to time, information about alleged violations of codes of labour practice in workplaces supplying ETI corporate members is received by trade union or NGO members of ETI. This information is often supplied by trade union affiliates or NGO partners in the supplier countries and is then communicated to ETI member companies.

When ETI was first established, members agreed that any alleged violations of this nature would be reported in the first instance to the ETI member company concerned, to allow the member to investigate and take remedial action before the alleged violation became a media issue.

As well as resolving the issue, the intention was to promote communication and good working relationships amongst ETI members, in the spirit of working together to resolve breaches of the ETI code in supply chains, and building confidence that such an approach can produce results.

In general the corporates see this flow of information as useful and one of the major benefits of membership of the ETI. Information received forms part of the ongoing discussions with the supplier base as corporate members seek to improve conditions and encourage routine application of the ETI base code.

In situations where the issue raised is widespread, corporates may wish to co-operate with each other and unions and NGOs to investigate and resolve it. Corporates may also wish to co-operate with unions and NGOs (i.e. union(s) to which the supplier's employees belong, the International Trade Secretariat covering the work in question, NGOs based in the UK or in supplier countries) to investigate and resolve an issue affecting them individually. Members have expressed a strong wish to resolve such issues in a collaborative manner, building on a base of mutual trust.

To assist such a cooperative approach, ETI has prepared a set of guidelines for members to consider when they embark on the discussion and investigation of an alleged code violation. The extent to which members utilise these guidelines is for them to determine. The guidelines propose a meeting of the parties at the beginning of the process to decide how the investigation (and any necessary remediation) should take place.

The guidelines are intended to maintain common understanding and co-operation throughout the investigation and resolution of the alleged code violation. The aim is to reach a conclusion that all parties accept as final, i.e. a position where the parties agree that as much as can be done has been done, bearing in mind the limitations inherent in any particular situation.

The guidelines are based on previous experience with investigation and remediation of alleged code violations. They have been developed in the spirit of ETI's "learning by doing" approach and are intended to provide a structure for further learning. When the Board deems it appropriate or after two years (following the ISO model), the Board will initiate a review, to enable the guidelines to be modified and improved in the light of experience.

 

 

THE GUIDELINES

1. Definition

1.1 The alleged code violation investigation guidelines are guidelines agreed by the members of the Ethical Trading Initiative for the investigation of alleged code violations occurring on supplier production sites and for remediation where it is established that a code violation has occurred.

2. Purpose

2.1 The purpose of the guidelines is (a) to ensure that alleged code violations are brought to ETI member companies in a way that facilitates the investigation of the allegation, (b) to ensure that the investigation of the allegation, and any remediation found to be necessary, occurs expeditiously and transparently, (c) to encourage the sharing of information amongst ETI members about supply chain labour practices, and (d) to build positive working relationships and the confidence of stakeholder groups in each other.

3. Parties to the Guidelines

3.1 The mutual obligations set out in these guidelines apply to members of the Ethical Trading Initiative (company, trade union and NGO).

3.2 It is understood that when allegations of code violation arise, they usually originate from the partners or affiliates of the trade union and NGO members of the ETI in supplier countries. In these cases, providing the allegation is supported by an ETI member, it should be treated as originating from an ETI member and will be covered by the terms of these guidelines.

3.3 In situations where the ETI member is relaying an allegation on behalf of a non-member, the ETI member should satisfy itself that the allegation is soundly based before approaching the company.

4. Principles

4.1 The principles underlying these guidelines are the following:

Transparency - the parties should be open with each other about all aspects of the allegation and its investigation and remediation (source and nature of the allegation, specific details and time of occurrence, method of investigation, timetable for investigation, results, remediation plan, timetable and verification).

Co-operative approach - the parties should adopt a co-operative approach to working with each other, investigating allegations and achieving code compliance where breaches have occurred.

Respect for the facts - an emphasis at all stages (allegation, investigation, remediation) on establishing the facts as reliably as possible.

Direct communication - facilitating direct communication amongst those affected by the alleged code violation so that the issues can be resolved as close as possible to their point of origin. Involving the ETI Secretariat and Board only as a last resort.

Promptness - investigation and remediation to occur within the shortest period of time appropriate to the nature of the allegation or code breach.

Finality - the aim of the guidelines is to produce a definite result, i.e. a position where all the parties agree that as much as can be done has been done. This involves finding out whether or not code breaches have occurred, and, if they have, remedying them expeditiously, as far as is possible in the particular circumstances.

4.2. Use of the ETI alleged code violation investigation guidelines cannot bar employees from using other means of redress (e.g. framework agreements, supplier country grievance procedures such as labour inspection services, or ILO or OECD complaints procedures) simultaneously, as the legal framework and parties to these other means of redress are different from those of the ETI. Where a labour practice is the subject of a complaint via another channel of redress, this should be made known to the ETI member being asked to investigate the labour practice against the ETI or company code (see paragraph 9.2.d.)

5. Scope of the Guidelines

5.1 These guidelines cover allegations of code violations that are either (a) specific and very serious, requiring an instant response, or (b) specific and on-going, requiring prompt investigation in line with these guidelines.

5.2 There may be cases where the information about an alleged code violation is not specific enough (e.g. to a particular supplier) or not definite enough (e.g. hearsay not supported by reliable testimony) to trigger these guidelines. Such information should still be passed on to the relevant ETI member companies, for them to use in planning their supply chain monitoring activity.

5.3 The parties should discuss in each case whether the information constitutes general background information, or information that is intended to trigger these guidelines.

6. Definition of "supplier" for the Purposes of these Guidelines

6.1 These guidelines apply to alleged code violations occurring on supplier sites that (a) are within the scope of application of the ETI member company's code of practice, and (b) have a direct and identifiable relationship with the ETI member company.

6.2 Supply via an agent will be covered by these guidelines where it is known that the product of the relevant supplier is being purchased by the relevant ETI member company.

6.3 Alleged code violations by the ultimate suppliers of products sourced from commodity markets supplied by large numbers of producers will generally not be covered by these guidelines, because of the difficulty of establishing a direct link between a particular supplier and a particular ETI member company. In these cases, ETI members should discuss a collective approach.

6.4 These guidelines do not apply to alleged code violations outside the scope of the ETI member company's code of practice, or where it cannot be proven to the satisfaction of both parties that the supplier to which the allegation relates supplies the relevant ETI member company.

6.5 In the case of transient suppliers, alleged code violations should be recorded at the time the allegation is made and should be investigated prior to any re-use of the supplier.

(A transient supplier is one which has only been used for a short period of time, and where the period of supply has finished at the time the allegation is made and there is no immediate plan to use that supplier again.)

7. Process for Invoking Guidelines

7.1 The ETI member alleging a code violation should gather as much information as it reasonably can about the alleged violation from its informant(s) before approaching the relevant ETI member company.

7.2 When it has gathered as much information as it reasonably can about the allegation, the initiating member may notify the relevant ETI member company. The allegation should be conveyed in writing. The communication should identify the member initiating the allegation (e.g. by letterhead), and be dated and signed.

7.3 A copy of each communication relating to the allegation should be sent to the ETI Secretariat at the same time as it is sent to the addressee. The Secretariat will send a copy of the allegation to the appropriate International Trade Secretariat (ITS) and ensure that this ITS has the opportunity to participate in the process of investigation and remediation.

7.4 The communication containing the allegation should cover the following points:

Name of supplier company: the normal trading name of the supplier company.

Identification of supplier site: As much information as possible to enable a specific identification of location (e.g. name of supplier site, address, department or sub-unit where appropriate).

Link with ETI member company: e.g. direct supplier or agency; the relevant product being supplied to the ETI member company.

Alleged code breach: The code provision being breached and a short description of the behaviour of the supplier company giving rise to the allegation. If there are multiple breaches, a brief description of each.

The scale of the alleged problem: i.e. does it relate to a few employees, or a large proportion of the workforce? Is there immediate physical danger? How great is the breach of the code?

Supporting information: Sufficient detail about the alleged non-compliant behaviour to establish the nature of the allegation (circumstances, time and place) and an indication of where corroborating information may be found.

Is the allegation current? The organisation forwarding the allegation should satisfy itself that the situation is ongoing and has not been remedied by actions already taken.

Is the grievance being pursued along other channels at the same time as lodging the allegation with the ETI member company? Is there a union on site that has taken up the grievance? Is there any industrial action? Has a court case been filed? Is any other type of advocacy under way?

Have the employees affected by the alleged code violation expressed their own preferences for a solution? If a code violation is established, the remedy should take account of the wishes of those directly involved.

Contact point: What is the name of the organisation originating the allegation in the supplier country and what are its contact details? Can it be contacted directly by the ETI member company?

What is the relationship between the organisation making the allegation and the employees affected by the allegation? E.g. "community organisation working with employees on social welfare issues", "union to which employees belong", "political party active in district", "legal rights organisation", etc.

Other relevant organistions. Are there any other organisations in the vicinity of the workplace where the alleged code breach has occurred who it would be useful to contact during the investigation? What are their remits and contact details?

Are there any local complexities that the ETI member company should be aware of before sending in investigators? E.g. ethnic or political issues that have a bearing on the alleged code violation, competition between different unions for membership coverage, military suppression of worker organising activities, etc.

8. Should Individual Employees be Identified?

8.1 The general principle is that as much detail as possible about the allegation should be supplied. However, in some circumstances there may be a risk of victimisation of the employees concerned. If so, this should be stated by the ETI Member communicating the allegation and the names of the individuals concerned may be withheld.

8.2 Where the allegation concerns alleged code breaches affecting large numbers of employees (e.g. to do with pay rates, overtime, health and safety) there is no requirement to divulge the names of individual workers. However, the supporting information supplied should still be sufficient to identify the time, place and circumstances of the alleged violation(s).

8.3 If the allegation relates to employees being wrongfully dismissed, the names of the employees should be supplied. 

9. Meeting of Parties and Memorandum of Understanding

9.1 Once the allegation has been communicated to the ETI member company, the parties should meet as soon as possible. This meeting should discuss the nature of the allegation and the procedure for investigating it, and record its decisions in a Memorandum of Understanding. 

9.2. The Memorandum of Understanding should cover the following points:

1. Whether the allegation is specific enough to trigger these guidelines, or constitutes general background information about supply chain working conditions in a particular country,
    
2. Whether the allegation affects more than one ETI member company (i.e. whether several companies take supply from the same supplier and, if so, how the other companies should be involved),
    
3. The degree of leverage of the ETI member company (reflecting the scale of purchases and the proportion of the supplier's output taken by the ETI member),
    
4. The degree of confidentiality applicable. The general principle is that ETI members will refrain from publicising the allegation in the media while the ETI member company is investigating and addressing the problem. However, in some cases the allegation will already be a matter of public knowledge in the country where the supplier is based, or may be the subject of a complaint to the ILO or some other established process. If so, this should be disclosed and taken into account at the outset of the ETI process.
    
5. The way in which the allegation will be investigated,
    
6. How any needed remediation will be evaluated,
    
7. Whether or not it is appropriate to seek joint action with companies that are not ETI members but are taking supply from the same supplier,
    
8. The timetable for the investigation,
    
9. Whether any additional resources will be needed (e.g. for translation or interpretation) and where these will come from. The plan of action decided upon at the initial meeting should be costed and, if there is a resource shortfall, the parties should consider how best to cover that shortfall, including the option of an approach to ETI for assistance. (Note: This provision should be read in conjunction with paragraph 16 of these guidelines)
    

9.3 The parties should maintain continuity of representation throughout the process of investigation and remediation, i.e. the same organisation, and as far as possible the same person, should act as representative in relation to the allegation from the beginning of the process until its end. 

10. Investigation of the Alleged Code Violation

10.1 Once the parties have met and agreed on the process of the investigation, the ETI Member Company should investigate as quickly as possible, within a time frame appropriate to the severity of the alleged violation.

10.2 The purpose of the investigation is to find the facts, as reliably as possible. Unless the parties agree on a different approach, the company should engage competent investigators (either from their own staff or from specialist outside organisations) and should check all sources of information necessary in the particular circumstances. In all cases, the investigator should speak to the persons or organisation in the supplier country originating the allegation. The investigator should conduct off-site interviews with employees of the supplier where this is necessary for the employees to freely express themselves.

10.3 In conducting the investigation, the company should apply the experience gained by the ETI pilot projects in developing best practice guidelines for the evaluation of supplier sites.

10.4 If the allegation relates to supplier behaviour that has already been the subject of other investigations (e.g. by the ILO), the results of these investigations should be taken into account by the investigation carried out under these guidelines.

11. No Victimisation

11.1 When informing the supplier that an allegation has been made, the ETI member company should make it clear to the supplier that there is a "no victimisation" policy in relation to employees who may have made allegations of code violation and that any victimisation will be regarded as a serious breach of the Code and will call into question the supplier relationship.

12. Investigation Report 

12.1 When the investigation has been completed the investigator should make a written report, which should be shared with the relevant ETI member company, the supplier, the relevant employees, the person or organisation originating the allegation in the supplier country, the ETI member that communicated the allegation to the ETI member company and the relevant International Trade Secretariat. [1]

12.2 The investigation report should state:

• Who carried out the investigation.
• When it was done.
• What methods were used (in sufficient detail to give the reader an understanding of the investigation process).
• What the coverage of the investigation was (i.e. what proportion of the employees and the work site was covered).
• Whether off-site worker interviews were conducted.
• The results of the consultation with the persons or organisation originating the allegation.
• What the findings of the investigation were, specific to each allegation.

12.3 In order to support the "no victimisation" policy, the names of individual non-managerial employees should not be disclosed in the investigation report.

13. Remediation Plan

13.1 Where the investigator's report confirms any or all of the alleged code breaches, the ETI member company should negotiate a remediation plan with the supplier. This plan should provide for prompt remediation of the violations, taking into account the nature of the violation and the type of remediation required.

13.2 The remediation plan should be shared with the relevant employees, the person or organisation originating the allegation in the supplier country, the ETI member that communicated the allegation to the ETI member company and the relevant International Trade Secretariat.

13.3 The remediation plan should contain:

• A description of each code breach being addressed.
• The nature of the remediation action.
• The timescale for the remediation action.
• Any changes in the ETI member company's trading practice necessary to make remediation effective.

14. Meeting to Consider the Investigation Report and Remediation Plan

14.1 As soon as is convenient after the circulation of the investigation report, the parties should meet to discuss the report and decide on the next steps.

14.2 If the parties agree with the findings of the investigation report, and the report discloses Code breaches, the next step is to reach agreement on the remediation plan.

14.3 The views of the supplier workforce and the organisation originating the allegation in the supplier country should be taken into account in assessing the accuracy of the investigation and the contents of the remediation plan.

14.4 If the person or organisation originating the allegation disagrees with the findings of the investigator's report, this disagreement should be communicated to the ETI member company undertaking the investigation, along with any additional information necessary to explain the disagreement. The ETI member company should examine this information seriously and take the appropriate steps, which may include a further enquiry into the supplier's operations, if necessary to establish the facts. The parties should agree who undertakes this investigation, the terms of reference and the status of the report. The results of this further enquiry should also be reported back to all parties and reasons given for the findings.

14.5 If the parties are unable to agree on the findings, the option of engaging an independent investigator agreeable to both sides should be considered. The parties should agree the terms of reference and the status of the investigator's report.

15. Completion and Final Report

15.1 The ETI member company should monitor the supplier's compliance with the remediation plan. When remediation is complete, the ETI member company should write to all the parties involved describing the remediation actions that have been undertaken and stating that remediation is complete.

15.2 If the person or organisation originating the allegation disagrees with the statement that remediation is complete, this opinion should be communicated to the ETI member company, along with any additional information necessary to explain the disagreement. The parties should discuss the differences between their two positions and try to reach an agreement on what course of action should be followed.

15.3 The views of the supplier workforce and the organisation initiating the allegation in the supplier country should be taken into account in assessing whether remediation is complete.

15.4 If the process takes longer than six months from the date the allegation was made, the ETI member company should provide an interim report at the six month point stating what has been completed, what remains to be done and the timetable for completion. A copy of this report should go to the ETI Board.

15.5 If remediation is still not complete after a further six months, the ETI member company should provide a further interim report stating what has been completed, what remains to be done and the timetable for completion. This report should be referred to the ETI Board, which should determine a course of action appropriate to the circumstances.

15.6 Where a code breach is remedied, the issue should be kept under review by the company in its annual monitoring. 

16. Costs of Investigation and Remediation

16.1 The costs of the investigation, and any necessary remediation, should be met by the supplier or the relevant ETI member company, in accordance with existing contracts or specific agreements made between them. 

17. Disagreements over the Interpretation or Implementation of these Guidelines

17.1 In the event of a disagreement between ETI members over the interpretation of these guidelines or the appropriate response to an alleged code violation, the parties should first try to resolve the disagreement in direct discussion with each other, in the spirit of mutual trust and co-operation described in the preamble.

17.2 If agreement cannot be reached, the issue may be referred to the ETI Secretariat for an opinion.

17.3 If agreement cannot be reached after discussion between the Secretariat and the parties, the issue will be referred to a tri-partite sub-committee of the Board, which will give both sides the opportunity to present their point of view along with any relevant documentation. In determining the membership of the adjudication sub-committee, the Board should avoid a commercial conflict of interest with the ETI member company involved in the investigation of the allegation.

17.4 The decision of the Board's adjudication committee will be final and binding on the parties.

17.5 Where an issue goes to the Board's adjudication committee, the Board members deputed to adjudicate should decide the issue referred to them within the following time limits:

Interpretation of these guidelines		One month.
Allegation in correct form		One month
Investigation process		Two months
Remediation		Three months.

 

 

Alleged Code Violation Investigation Guidelines

FLOW CHART

Note: This flow chart may not display intelligibly in older browsers - if this is the case for you, please click here to download the PDF version and see Page 11 to view correctly.
 

Details of alleged code violation forwarded to company by NGO or union.
| V
The parties meet to discuss the allegation and how to deal with it.	>>>	Where several ETI companies take supply from the supplier in question, a way of involving the other companies is decided.
| V
The approach to be taken is set out in a Memorandum of Understanding (point 9)
| V
The allegation is investigated and an investigation report is written and given to all parties (points 10-12)
| V
The parties meet to discuss the investigation report and decide on the next steps.	>>>	If the parties disagree over the conclusions of the investigation report, the opinion of the Secretariat may be sought.
| V		| V
If the investigation report finds that the Code has been breached, a remediation plan is developed with the supplier concerned.		The option of an independent investigator is considered.
| V		| V
When remediation is complete, the company writes to all parties describing the remediation actions that have been taken and stating that remediation is complete.		If the disagreement cannot be resolved, the issue is referred to a sub-committee of the ETI Board (point 17)
| V
If the parties do not agree that remediation is complete they should discuss the differences between their two positions and try to agree on a course of action.
| V		Automatic Reporting
The opinion of the Secretariat may be sought.		If the process takes longer than six months from the date the allegation was made, the ETI member company provides an interim report, a copy of which goes to the Board.
| V
If the disagreement cannot be resolved, the issue is referred to a sub-committee of the ETI Board (point 17).		If the process is not completed after a further six months, the ETI member company provides a further interim report, a copy of which goes to the Board. The Board determines a course of action appropriate to the circumstances.

 

 

See also:

• ETI Base Code and Principles of Implementation

 

Footnotes: 

1. Two of the International Trade Secretariats belong to the ETI. These are the International Union of Foodworkers and the International Textile, Garment and Leather Workers' Federation. [context]