Gender-sensitive Approach to Social Auditing - Participatory social auditing

Introduction

A participatory approach to codes of labour practice comes from a different perspective to more compliance focused snapshot social auditing. It puts greater emphasis on involvement of workers and workers organisations in the process of code implementation and assessment.This approach is sensitive to uncovering and thus addressing more complex issues such as gender discrimination and sexual harassment. These are issues more likely to be experienced by insecure non-permanent workers, who are often women, whose voices snapshot audits usually fail to pick up. They are less “visible” issues, that are unlikely to be resolved through a simple compliance approach. The goal of a participatory approach is a process of awareness creation and improvement that is more gender sensitive.

Third party social audits normally involve a snapshot visit by an external professional auditor or auditing team to a firm or farm to monitor compliance. However, snapshot audits often fail to pick up issues that are not easily verified by company records or physical inspection, such as gender discrimination. A participatory approach to social auditing and codes of labour practice comes from a different perspective: it focuses on auditing as a process. One that more directly involves workers and worker organisations in order to create the basis for more sustainable improvement in working conditions and compliance.

A gender-sensitive approach to social auditing is required to ensure that codes of labour practice help to protect more vulnerable temporary and casual workers, who are often women.They are often concentrated in insecure work (seasonal, casual, migrant, homework and contract work) and found in the most vulnerable forms of employment with little protection. It is amongst these groups of workers that the worst conditions of employment are usually found - low wages, long hours, lack of contracts, weak unionisation, poor health and safety, lack of social insurance or employment benefits. They rarely have access to formal legal rights or social protection, even though they work for global export suppliers. It is amongst these workers that the risks of non-compliance are therefore highest.

Overview of social auditing:

There are a large number of codes of labour practice, implemented by different companies and organisations. The codes of labour practice are based on Core International Labour Office (ILO) Conventions covering international labour standards, and require compliance with relevant national legislation. Some codes have been produced by multi-stakeholder initiatives that involve different stakeholder groups, including companies, trade unions and NGOs. Two examples are Social Accountability International (SAI) in the US and the Ethical Trading Initiative (ETI) in the UK, both of which are based on core ILO Conventions. SAI provides a standard (SA8000), against which companies can be certified.

ETI base code:

• Employment is freely chosen
• Freedom of association and the right to collective bargaining are respected
• Working conditions are safe and hygienic
• Child labour shall not be used
• Living wages are paid
• Working hours are not excessive
• No discrimination is practised
• Regular employment is provided
• No harsh or inhumane treatment is allowed
• Employers are also expected to comply with national and other applicable law, and apply that provision which affords the greater protection.

Source: Ethical Trading Initiative (1998). See www.ethicaltrade.org for the full ETI Base Code.

At a broader level, social auditing is a way of .measuring and reporting on an organisation's social and ethical performance. An organisation which takes on an audit makes itself accountable to its stakeholders and commits itself to following the audit's recommendations.(www.nef.org.uk)A social audit undertaken to ascertain compliance with a code of labour practice is one specific form of audit.

Developing a participatory approach to social auditing:

An alternative approach, which helps to address some of these problems, has been developed through the use of participatory social auditing (Auret 2002; Bendell 2001). This adapts and applies tools from Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) and Participatory Learning and Action(PLA)developed in the disciplines of anthropology and rural sociology to the process of social auditing. It involves a different philosophy, which is more worker-centred, and aims to engage workers as central to the whole auditing process. It rests on a process approach, which involves management and worker education and aims to instil learning and improvement rather than simply checking for one-off compliance.

Key issues for a gender-sensitive approach to social auditing:

The following characteristics, typical of female workers in developing countries, are of key importance when considering the nature of the approach and methods to be used in the social audit process, if the developmental aspect is to be realised:

• a low literacy level
• a lack of awareness of their rights as workers in civil society
• cultural norms and beliefs that dictate the subordinate role of women in society.

Social auditors need to be particularly sensitive to gender issues if they are to reveal non-compliances in such situations. Capturing the specific issues faced by women workers needs careful planning to ensure their inclusion in a social audit.

Examples of gender-sensitive issues in relation of code compliance:

Employment is freely chosen. In some countries, a condition of a male worker.s employment in agriculture is that his wife (or female relatives) are available to work when required by the employer, restricting her ability to freely choose her employment.

Freedom of association and the right to collective bargaining are respected. Women are often concentrated in temporary, casual and home work, where insecurity of employment increases the fear that unionisation would result in recrimination by employers denying them access to future work, undermining their right to freedom of association.

Working conditions are safe and hygienic. Male workers who are handling chemicals should have access to adequate personal protective equipment, and training in their use. However, women workers who are not directly handling chemicals are rarely protected, even though they might be exposed to them indirectly.

No discrimination is practised. Women workers regularly experience discrimination, for example through lack of access to certain jobs, training or promotion. It is common for women to form the majority of the workforce, yet men make up the majority of the skilled, supervisory and management staff (which a gender breakdown of the workforce will reveal).

Regular Employment is provided. Women workers are more often concentrated in insecure work, with less access than men to permanent or regular employment. A gender breakdown of the different categories of worker will reveal this as another form of gender discrimination.

Living wages are paid. Many workers in export production receive less than a living wage. But female workers are more likely to receive unequal wages compared to male workers for similar types of work, reducing their likelihood even further of earning a living wage.

Child labour shall not be used. Child labour is more likely to be found where workers, especially low paid women workers, are receiving wages too low to sustain their households or pay for childcare provision.

Working hours are not excessive. Long working hours and excessive overtime, often addressed in code principles, have extensive implications for childcare responsibilities.

No harsh or inhumane treatment is allowed. Verbal harassment of workers is common for male and female workers, but sexual harassment, whether verbally or physically, is usually a sensitive issue which affects women.

It is important that an auditor is aware of these implicit rather than explicit gender issues in Code principles, and that they have the skills and tools to uncover such issues, both in individual and group interviews.


Social auditing as a gender-sensitive process:
Central to a participatory approach is the process involved, of which the final social audit is an outcome rather than the means in itself. This process involves various stages. The first and most important is that of awareness creation amongst employers and workers. The second is the pre-audit, where issues are revealed and assessed, accompanied by engagement with the employer, workers and worker representatives to develop an implementation plan which will lead to improvement. The third stage is the final audit, where the employer is formally assessed for compliance. If the first and second stages have been effective, passing the audit should be the logical final outcome. The philosophy from the beginning is helping the employer to achieve successful compliance, rather than being policed or reprimanded for failure to comply.

Few producers or senior staff are aware of the managerial significance of communicating with a workforce which is predominantly female. This relates particularly to policy and work-related information which is normally passed through a .chain of command. involving middle and junior managerial staff that are predominantly male. This chain of command often creates barriers in communication between senior management and female and insecure workers.

The timing of the audit is also important in ensuring temporary, casual, migrant and other non-permanent workers are available for interview, as women are often concentrated in these categories. This means that audits usually have to be undertaken at the peak of the season, or of production activity. This might create some resistance from management, who would prefer a slacker period. But the risk is that only permanent workers are on site at this time, and the audit would miss more vulnerable workers who are often women.

The records check at the end of the pre-audit also provides an opportunity for the auditor to investigate key gender issues such as .equal pay for equal work., or .equal access to training and promotion. as well as verifying data obtained verbally or visually. It can help to reveal the degree of female workers. involvement in trade unions and/or workers. committees, where they can participate in meaningful decision-making processes.

Experience in the ETI pilots and research project highlighted the importance of using local social auditors, who are:

• able to speak the language of the interviewees
• aware of the cultural background of the workers concerned
• knowledgeable about the country legislation and constitution, and
• qualified and experienced in the use of the participatory methodology.

A formal, authoritative style of interviewing can easily lead workers into remaining silent and disengaged from a social audit. The use of participatory tools when conducting worker interviews however, can help workers to open up and engage more actively in the process.

The use of such tools is only one aspect of a wider participatory approach to codes of labour practice. The philosophy behind this approach is that workers should not simply be passive objects of an external audit, but should become more actively engaged in a process of improvement of their working conditions. Worker engagement can be extended through developing ongoing local independent monitoring and verification involving worker representatives as part of a more sustainable approach.

Local country codes of labour practice, promoted and supported by a multi-stakeholder association which includes industry, trade unions, relevant NGOs and government representatives, would provide greater local accountability.
Facilitation, and monitoring and verification of a code of labour practice contribute towards the improvement of labour conditions and standards, of management/worker relations and ultimately of the growth of more ethical trading.

Examples of local multi-stakeholder initiatives

Agricultural Ethics Assurance Association of Zimbabwe (AEAAZ)
The Agricultural Ethics Assurance Association of Zimbabwe (AEAAZ) was set up following the ETI pilot project in Zimbabwe. It is an autonomous body, governed by representatives of producers, trade unions and NGOs, that aims to promote and ensure compliance with the Zimbabwean National Agricultural Code of Practice. It seeks to improve social, chemical and environmental standards on agricultural export farms, with a view to maintaining and improving access to export markets.

Horticultural Ethical Business Initiative (HEBI), Kenya
During 2002, local civil society organisations spearheaded a campaign against poor working conditions on Kenyan flower farms, spawning a series of articles in the Kenyan press. These activities generated concern about the reputation of the industry in overseas markets, and were responsible for bringing together a range of stakeholders to engage in dialogue on the labour practices of flower farms.

Involvement of NGOs can help to ensure that sensitive issues, such as gender and racial discrimination are raised, as well as work-related issues such as childcare and social provision. Where government is involved, it can also provide a bridge between voluntary initiatives based on codes, and national regulation and enforcement of labour standards.

From a gender perspective, local multi-stakeholder initiatives present both opportunities and challenges. Women in insecure employment are often least likely to be organised or unionised, reinforcing their fragmentation and vulnerability. Multi-stakeholder initiatives that involve trade unions and NGOs sensitive to the needs of such women workers are more likely to ensure gender issues facing such workers are addressed. The combination of participatory social auditing and independent monitoring based on stakeholder engagement can thus help to give voice to such vulnerable workers. However, gender discrimination is often deeply embedded in employment practice and social relations. Local organisations (trade unions and NGOs) which are steeped in that social context could also serve to reinforce existing gender norms. Hence, whilst local multi-stakeholder initiatives can open up the space for gender and racial discrimination to be addressed, this is not automatic. They create an opportunity, but not a guarantee, for the enhanced participation of insecure women workers in the implementation of codes. Despite these challenges, local multi-stakeholder initiatives are becoming more established, and represent an important move away from a northern led top-down approach to codes of labour practice.

Concluding remarks:

A participatory approach to social auditing is viewed as part of a process that involves awareness creation and dialogue between employers, workers and their representatives. It aims to ensure that more insecure and vulnerable workers, who often have low confidence and literacy levels, have a voice in social audits.It involves the use of tools drawn from participatory rural appraisal and participatory learning and action.It stresses the need to use local auditors,with local knowledge and language and sensitive to gender issues.

This is in contrast to the culture of snapshot social auditing, based on brief formal visits by outside professional auditors. Here the focus is on policing suppliers, who in turn carry out the minimum changes needed to pass an audit, rather than making sustainable improvements in working conditions.

Through awareness creation, a participatory approach attempts to chang the mindsets of employers, and increase understanding of their rights by workers. The focus is not only to ensure that minimum labour standards are met,but also that improvement in employment practices reach all groups of workers. Such an approach faces many challenges, but it represents a shift away from a formal top-down compliance orientation, to the greater empowerment of workers and their representative organisations as an essential part of the process of improving labour standards and working conditions.


December 2004
Derived from : A practical guide to developing a gender-sensitive approach
By Diana Auret and Stephanie Barrientos

INSTITUTE OF DEVELOPMENT STUDIES
Brighton, Sussex BN1 9RE
ENGLAND


References
Auret, D., 2002, Participatory Social Auditing of Labour Standards, A Handbook for Code of Practice Implementers, Harare: Agricultural Ethics Assurance Association of Zimbabwe
Barrientos, S. (forthcoming), Corporate Social Responsibility, Employment and Global Sourcing by Multinational Enterprises, Geneva: International Labour Office (ILO)
Barrientos, S., Hossain, N. and Kabeer, N. (forthcoming), .The gender dimensions of the globalisation of production., Background Paper to the World Commission on the Social Dimensions of Globalization, Geneva: International Labour Office (ILO)

Bendell, J., 2001, Towards Participatory Workplace Appraisal: Report from a Focus Group of Women Banana Workers, Bristol: New Academy of Business

Chambers, R., 1997, Whose Reality Counts? Putting the First Last, London: Intermediate Technology Publications

Dolan, C., Opondo, M. and Smith, S., 2004, .Gender, rights and participation in the Kenya cut flower industry., NRI Report 2768, Greenwich: Natural Resources Institute

Ethical Trading Initiative, 2004, Inspecting Labour Practice in the Wine Industry in the Western Cape, South Africa, 1998.2001, London: ETI, www.ethicaltrade.org/Z/lib/2004/02/sawine-rept/index.shtml [Access date August 2004]
.. 2003, ETI Workbook, Step by Step Guide to Ethical Trade, London: ETI
.. 1998, Purposes and Principles, London: ETI www.ethicaltrade.org
International Labour Organisation, 2002, Decent Work and the Informal Economy, International Labour Conference, 90th Session, Geneva: ILO

Jenkins, R., Pearson, R. and Seyfang, G. (eds), 2002, Corporate Responsibility and Labour Rights, Codes of Conduct in the Global Economy, London: Earthscan
Kabeer, N., 1994, Reversed Realities, London: Verso
Kaplinsky, R. and Morris, M., 2001, A Manual for Value Chain Research, International Development Research Centre (IDRC) and Institute of Development Studies, Sussex, www.ids.ac.uk/ids/global/ man&hand.html [Accessed 6 December 2004]

O.Rourke, D., 2002, .Monitoring the Monitors: A Critique of Third-Party Labour Monitoring., in
R. Jenkins, R. Pearson and G. Seyfang (eds), Corporate Responsibility and Labour Rights: Codes of Conduct in the Global Economy, London: Earthscan: 196.208

Rowlands, J., 1997, Questioning Empowerment, Working with Women in Honduras, Oxford: Oxfam

Smith, S., Auret, D., Barrientos, S., Dolan, C., Kleinbooi, K., Njobvu, C., Opondo, M., and Tallontire, A., 2004, .Ethical trade in African horticulture: gender, rights and participation.,IDS Working Paper 223, Brighton:Institute of Development Studies

Urminsky, M. (ed.), no date, Self Regulation in the Workplace: Codes of Conduct, Social Labelling and Socially Responsible Investment, Geneva: International Labour Office (ILO)

Utting, P., 2002, Regulating Business via Multistakeholder Initiatives: A Preliminary Assessment. in Voluntary Approaches to Corporate Responsibility: Readings and a Resource Guide, Geneva: United Nations Research Institute for Social Development (UNRISD)

VeneKlasen, L. and Miller, V., 2002, A New Weave of Power, People and Politics, Oklahoma: World
Neighbours, www.wn.org