Date: Fri, 06 Mar 1998 07:33:28 -0500
From: Barbara Larcom <larcom@mail.bcpl.lib.md.us>
Subject: [Fwd: Duke: new licensing code]
Sender: owner-slac@listproc.hcf.jhu.edu
To: SLAC <slac@listproc.hcf.jhu.edu>
Reply-to: slac@listproc.hcf.jhu.edu
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------74EC7E18261040F0F8AF36EC
--------------74EC7E18261040F0F8AF36EC
Thu, 5 Mar 1998 21:44:03 -0800 (PST)
Thu, 5 Mar 1998 21:32:19 -0800 (PST)
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1998 21:32:19 -0800 (PST)
To: clr@igc.org
From: Campaign for Labor Rights <clr@igc.apc.org>
Subject: Duke: new licensing code
Labor Alerts: a service of Campaign for Labor Rights
To receive our email labor alerts, send a message to CLR@igc.apc.org
Phone: (541) 344-5410 Web site: http://www.compugraph.com/clr
Membership/newsletter. Send $35.00 to Campaign for Labor Rights, 1247 "E"
Street SE, Washington, DC 20003. Sample newsletter available on request.
DUKE SETS NEW LICENSING POLICY
A first in the nation, Duke's new standards could have an important impact
on sweatshops.
March 4, 1998
[Information provided by Students against Sweatshops (at Duke)
<jms18@acpub.duke.edu> and Global Exchange <kimberly@globalexchange.org>
(415) 255-7296]
On Friday, March 6 Duke University will go public with its ground-breaking
new policy on licensing contracts, a policy which - if adopted widely by
other campuses - could have a profound impact on reducing sweatshop abuses.
The Duke student organization Students against Sweatshops, whose members
have been negotiating the terms of the code with university administrators
since the fall, hope that it will be a model for other schools wishing to
play a role in stopping the global proliferation of sweatshops.
The Code of Conduct encompasses all Duke University licensees - companies
which manufacture products emblazoned with the Duke name and/or logo. Under
the terms of the Code, any company seeking a contract with Duke must comply
with the new regulations.
The Code is designed to force companies to be accountable for the conditions
under which their products are manufactured. Sections cover issues such as
worker treatment and maximum work hours per week. The Code was modeled
largely on existing international standards, such as those embodied in
covenants of the International Labor Organization and other bodies of the
United Nations.
Students against Sweatshops insisted that the Code include sufficient
enforcement teeth that it not end up being a cosmetic cover for business as
usual. For example, the Code requires licencees to disclose to the
university a complete listing of sites which have any role in the
manufacturing process, from primary contractor factories or assembling
centers down through all layers of the subcontracting system, whether
international or domestic - including locator information for each site.
Linked closely with the demand for factory disclosure is a stipulation that
the university has the right to send independent monitors to inspect
conditions and labor practices in those factories. The Code provides for
such inspections to be conducted at least once a year and mandates that a
report will be given to a committee of both students and administration
representatives for review. Licensees whose manufacturing sources are found
in noncompliance with the code will be granted a period in which to correct
problems, after which - if substantive violations remain - Duke will
terminate the licensee's contract.
The Code of Conduct is based on the premise that the purchasing leverage of
a university is greater than that of individual consumers - all the more so
if several universities adopt the same or similar codes.
Student activists pointed out that Duke currently is ranked Number One in
the nation in men's basketball, greatly increasing the demand for its
athletic gear. Because Duke is in a position of demand, if one company does
not comply with the Code, other manufacturers would eagerly step in to
assume a licensing agreement to manufacture for the university. This special
leverage helps to raise the profile of Duke's Code and to establish it as a
national standard for universities.
The Code deals with sweatshop abuses by any licensee, whether a high-profile
company such as Nike or a lesser-known brand. Nike, which currently
manufactures Duke apparel, has become almost synonymous with sweatshops in
the public consciousness. Under the new Code, once Nike's factory locations
have been disclosed, if Nike contractors are found in persistent violation
of the Code, Duke will terminate its contract with Nike.
The Code does not encompass contracts with athletic teams, only licensing.
Team contracts are already in place. While the athletic teams are visible
advertising for companies such as Nike, the licensing industry is where all
the real money-making for these companies occurs.
Student activists noted that Nike's contract with the Duke athletic
department prohibits coaches from freely expressing whatever concerns they
may have about the company's labor practices. Nike routinely inserts into
its contracts with athletic departments such provisions attempting to limit
the right of free speech of players, coaches and other university employees.
--------------74EC7E18261040F0F8AF36EC--