consultation results synopsis information to stakeholders ...consultation period 06.05.2013 –...

1

Consultation Results Synopsis Information to stakeholders on the outcome of the Hired Labour Standard review consultation

To Certified Hired Labour producers, Producer Networks, NFOs,

Fairtrade International Staff, worker rights NGOs

Consultation Period 06.05.2013 – 15.09.2013

Standards Committee Meeting

for Decision

21.11.2013

Project Manager Contact Details Elisabeth Bystrom, Project Manager, [email protected]

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PART 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 2

1.1. General Introduction ......................................................................................... 2

1.2. Executive Summary ......................................................................................... 2

1.3. Next steps ........................................................................................................ 3

1.4. Abbreviations ................................................................................................... 4

1.5. Annexes ........................................................................................................... 4

PART 2 Consultation outcomes ................................................................................................. 4

2.1. Consultation process ........................................................................................ 4

2.2. Overview of stakeholder participants ................................................................ 5

2.3. Workshop methodology ................................................................................... 5

2.4 Consultation outcome and stakeholder feedback .............................................. 6

2

PART 1 Introduction 1.1. General Introduction Fairtrade International Standards Unit (FLO SU) would like to thank all stakeholders for the time and effort they have put into participating in the consultation on the Hired Labour Standard review. The consultation concluded on the 15 September, 2013. Over 120 written responses to the public consultation document were received from a wide range of stakeholders and over 400 workers and nearly 170 management representatives participated in workshops and direct interviews globally, providing the Standards Unit at Fairtrade International with their views and perspectives. Thanks to these contributions, the Standards Unit has gained a thorough understanding of critical issues and received input on proposed changes to the HL standard. Together with the results of the research carried out by the Standards Unit, this information provides the basis for our recommendation to the Standards Committee. The Standards Committee’s decision regarding proposed revisions and changes to the standard will take stakeholders’ input strongly into consideration. This document aims to present the outcome of the consultation and the subsequent recommendations from the Standards Unit to the Standards Committee in the most transparent way possible without disclosing confidential stakeholder information. Should you have any queries or remarks concerning t his report, please contact the Project Manager Elisabeth Bystrom at: [email protected] et 1.2. Executive Summary Background • Last review of the Hired Labour Standard was undertaken in 2005. • Hired Labour strategy was approved by the Fairtrade International Board in March 2012 • Regional specific consultations on the Hired Labour strategy were undertaken independently by

the Producer Networks (PN) • Review of the Hired Labour Standard commenced in January 2013 Project objectives • Identify action points from HL strategy and translate into standard requirements, in particular

regarding: � Collective empowerment – strengthening the rule around workers’ organisation and

freedom of association � Premium use – introducing flexibility � Living wage – adding clarity and introducing timeline

• Revise the standard requirements according to results of on-going monitoring of the application of the HL Standard since last review.

• Apply New Standards Framework (NSF) and integrate feedback from initial NSF consultation in 2010

The environmental requirements were excluded from this review as a full review was done in 2010 during the Generic Environmental Standard (GES) review and applied in 2011.

Project phases and timelines Jan – March 2013 Research Feb – March 2013 Drafting March 2013 Advisory meetings with WRAC and PNs 19 March 2013 Present draft Standard to Standard Committee for guidance April 2013 Finalize draft Standard + consultation document

Translation of documents 6 May – 15 Sept 2013

Public Consultation and regional workshops with workers and management

October Analysis (+ second consultation round if needed)

3

10 October 2013 Synopsis of consultation published October Analysis (+ second consultation round if needed) October Revised draft standard and compliance criteria – FLO-CERT and SU November 2013 SC decision January 2014 Board ratification (if SC approves Standard) February/March, 2014 Publication HL Standard Participants Of the 250 stakeholders who received the public consultation document on the review of the Hired Labour Standard, approximately 50% responded. Responses came from producers, traders, retailers, NGOs, trade unions, national Fairtrade organizations, FLO and FLO-cert. 33 % of the 209 certified producers under the Hired Labour Standard contributed in written form, while 169 management representatives shared their views in workshops globally. Over 400 workers, representing nearly 170,000 Fairtrade workers world -wide participated in workshops and direct interviews, providing the Standards Unit at Fairtrade International with their views and perspectives. Findings 36 questions regarding changes to the Standard were asked in the public consultation on Hired Labour, of these 20 were derived from the Hired Labour strategy. Overall response on most of the questions to the changes proposed was positive. There was particular overall positive response from all stakeholders to proposals on requiring workers representation at certification; holding an annual general assembly of all workers; Premium Committee access to funds if the company is decertified or dissolved; workers’ access to Fairtrade representatives and moving the grievance procedure to a core year 0 requirement. However, several of of the total number of questions asked had a larger number of negative responses, or the majority of one stakeholder group was against a particular change. These questions included flexible Premium use, whether or not unions should be invited to the work place at the time of initial certification, wage related questions, and needs assessment for migrant workers home communities. There were hundreds of comments on almost every topic in the consultation document, indicating a very high level of engagement for the review of the HL Standard, and responses varied between stakeholder group and region in questions such as worker representation, housing and migrant issues. Interestingly there was no particular trend that workers were all in agreement across all regions, similarly for producers and other stakeholder groups. Regional differences were reflected on several questions, in particular on worker representation while the product sector seemed to show little bearing on the responses. While there are still a significant number of technical changes to the draft requirements as they are currently proposed, Fairtrade has received generally positive feedback to the changes and will therefore not undertake an additional round of consultation with all stakeholders. Rather, amendments will be made based on suggestions from the extensive feedback received and guided by the Standards Committee which is designated to make decisions on standards and represents all stakeholder groups. 1.3. Next steps The Standards Unit will present the results of this consultation along with all findings in the Hired Labour Standard review and SU recommendations to the Standard Committee at the meeting on November 21, 2013. The SC will make their decision as to concrete steps and possible necessary amendments to the Standards at that time. The final draft standard requires SC approval, following which the HL standard will go to the Fairtrade International Board for ratification. The final Hired Labour standard will be published once ratified by the Board. The final decisions of the SC will be published in the minutes following the meeting and will be available on the Fairtrade website.

4

1.4. Abbreviations FoA Freedom of Association FPC Fairtrade Premium Committee HL Hired Labour ILO International Labour Organization JB Joint Body NAPP Network of Asian and Pacific Producers NSF New Standards Framework PN Producer networks, regional Fairtrade organizations in the producer markets PSR Producer Services and Relations Unit at Fairtrade International SC Standards Committee SOP Standard Operating Procedure SPO Small Producer Organization SU Standards Unit at Fairtrade International WC Workers’ Committee WRAC Workers’ Rights Advisory Council 1.5. Annexes Annex 1 Number of workers in Fairtrade certified companies (included at the end of this document) Annex 2 Workshop with worker Methodology Annex 3 Consulting with workers in Fairtrade Annex 4 Guide to facilitating Participatory Consultation Workshops with Farm Workers (AFIT) Annex 5 Comprehensive overview of consultation questions (included at the end of this document) Annex 6 Draft HL Standard Annex 7 Public consultation questionnaire Annex 8 Worker workshop questionnaire

PART 2 Consultation outcomes 2.1. Consultation process The public consultation on the Fairtrade Hired Labour Standard began on 5 May, 2013 and was planned to end 5 July, 2013. To accommodate workshops schedules and stakeholder requests for extensions the SU extended the deadline to 15 September. The consultation was broad-based in terms of stakeholder participation as well as methodology. For the first time in Fairtrade history workers, the beneficiaries of the Hired Labour Standard, were included in the consultation along with the certificate holders. The written consultation documents consisted of 2 documents: 1) A 101 page document that presented the current HL standard alongside the draft HL standard in column form, with a column identifying major changes and rationale for proposed change (annex 6). Elements of the SCORE system, as part of the NSF revision, with timelines and indicators that requirements were either core or development were also presented. 2) A consultation paper with explanations of and questions on key proposed changes to the Hired Labour Standard. This also included a list of all new and deleted requirements (annex 7). These documents were sent by email to over 250 stakeholders, including 209 certified HL producers, all Producer Networks and National Fairtrade Organizations (who further distributed them to or consulted directly with their licensees), the Workers’ Rights Advisory Committee members and their affiliated workers’ rights organizations, Standards Committee members, Fairtrade Board members, and external stakeholders on the Standards distribution list. An on-line version of the survey in English and Spanish was available through the survey tool, Survey monkey, with links sent by email, and all documents and the survey link were available on the Fairtrade website.

5

In addition to the written consultation, participatory workshops were held with workers and management representatives of certified Hired Labour plantations in areas with the highest concentration of producers certified under the Hired Labour Standard. These workshops were jointly organized and facilitated by the Standards Unit, the Producer Networks and the Producer Services and Relations Unit. The workshop methodology was developed by the SU together with a team of experienced facilitators and input from the Producer Networks (annex 2). The workshop with workers covered a selection of topics specific to workers and was supplemented by a written questionnaire to cross-check the results obtained (annex 8). The management workshop covered all topics from the public consultation document. All answers were collated and detailed responses were categorized according to stakeholder group and point of view. 2.2. Overview of stakeholder participants Consultation participation through written feedback A total of 126 completed surveys were received by the end of the consultation period. Responses primarily came from certified HL producers, but also included NGOs, trade unions, Fairtrade International staff and NFOs.

Producer 68 Trader/Retailer 31 Trade Union/NGO 11 NFO 10 FLO/FLO-CERT 6 Total 126

In addition to the formal questionnaire and on-line survey, a number of stakeholders provided input via email and phone conversations. This valuable feedback was collated by topic and considered in the review. Consultation participation through workshops and direct interviews 2.3. Workshop methodology A total of 18 workshops and on-site group interviews with workers and 11 workshops with managers from Fairtrade certified Hired Labour plantations took place globally between May and September of this year. Below is a table that shows where each workshop or group interview was held and the number of participants. Annex 1 provides detailed information regarding total numbers workers in all regions. Consultation workshops and group interviews Locations Number of

participants: Workers’

Number of participants: Management

Product

Siliguri, North India 7 2 Tea Coimbatore, South India 21 12 Tea Hatton, Sri Lanka 36 15 Tea, plants Sialkot, Pakistan 25 11 sports balls Urabá, Colombia 49 22 bananas MaoDominican Republic 26 18 bananas Quito, Ecuador 21 15 Bananas, flowers Argentina* 15 0 wine grapes Chile* 15 0 Tea, fruit, flowers

6

Nairobi, Kenya 62 44 Fruit, wine grapes Limpopo, South Africa 8 6 Wine grapes Western Cape (Boland), South Africa

22 0 Wine grapes

Western Cape (Swartland), South Africa

12 6 Wine grapes

Eastern Cape 8 5 Tea Mutare, Zimbabwe* 25 0 Flowers Malawi* 10 0 Flowers Ethiopia* 8 0 Flowers Uganda* (interviews on 3 estates)

51 13 Tea

Total 421 169 The aim of the workshops with workers was to engage the beneficiaries of Fairtrade in the process of the Standard revision and gather their feedback on the topics that have the most impact on their lives. While it is acknowledged that the context for workers varies greatly from region to region and product to product, Fairtrade holds that one generic standard for all workers remains to be the most equitable means of addressing the needs of all workers across the Fairtrade system. Product specific and regional specific variances are considered in the product specific standards. For this reason, a general methodology that was applied to all workshops was adopted. However, throughout this review where regional divergences clearly conflict with a generic approach, regional specific solutions are considered. Methodology development The SU team first selected areas for HL workshops based on concentration of HL operators and number of workers. 3 locations for each region were selected with input from PSR. Final locations were agreed with input from PNs. These followed the same geographical placement as the regional consultations on the HL strategy conducted by the PNs in 2012. A team of experienced facilitators was formed to develop the methodology together with the HL team. This included staff from SU, PSR Asia, Africa and LA, the Senior Advisor for workers’ rights, as well as representatives from the African producer network and the Association for Fairness and Trade (who is also a member of the Worker’s Rights Advisory Committee). The topics for discussion with workers were selected from the public consultation document, with a focus on what would be most pertinent for workers globally. These included questions on worker representation, flexible Premium use, voting rights in the Joint Body/Premium Committee and housing where applicable. Particular attention was given to regional differences, managing expectations of participants, how to include marginalized participants, such as women or lower caste groups. Creating a safe space to allow workers to express opinions freely was of particular importance. Once finalized, the methodology for the workshops, including a section on possible risks and their mitigation, was circulated to all facilitators, the PNs and WRAC for comment. Prior to meeting with workers and producers, a training for facilitators was held on conducting participatory interviews and workshops. A paper on best practices for consulting with workers commissioned by the Senior Advisor for workers’ rights was also disseminated (see annex 3). The methodology used for both workshops with workers and management is presented in annex 2. 2.4 Consultation outcome and stakeholder feedback This section provides a summary of all responses received for each survey question. Results from workshops, workers questionnaires, the public consultation and additional feedback are collated here along with the prosed requirements. There were 36 questions in total. Not all questions were asked to workers and were posed only in the public consultation document, as explained above. For a complete list of all consultations questions see annex 5 at the end of this paper.

7

1. Worker representation at initial certification The current HL Standard states that “if no active and recognized union is able to work in the area, all the workers shall democratically elect a workers’ committee that represents them and negotiates with management to defend their rights and interests” (1.4.1.3, timeline is currently year 0). The proposed requirement for consultation no long imposes a workers’ committee if no trade union is able to work in the area, rather, the revised requirement proposes:

3.4.4 There must be some form of democratically elected and independent workers’ representation in the certified company, even if this is at a very basic level in order to ensure worker representation and empowerment. Workers must take the initiative themselves and must be allowed to organize independently of management. Your company must respect the self-organization of workers by engaging with representatives of these organizations through regular dialogue. Management is expected to provide the opportunity to workers to organize, but they must not interfere in the process.

2. This requirement is proposed to be fulfilled at time of initial certification. There is a majority of positive responses from all groups with caveats as explained below.

Do you agree with the approach that Fairtrade does not define the structure in which workers should organize?

Producer Trader/ Retailer

Union/ NGO NFO

FLO/ FLO-CERT

All Groups

Yes, I agree. Count 37 20 7 7 6 77 % 56% 63% 54% 88% 86% 61%

No, I don't agree. Count 18 4 3 1 1 27 % 27% 13% 23% 13% 14% 21%

I don't have an opinion. Count 6 3 0 0 0 9 % 9% 9% 0% 0% 0% 7%

No answer Count 5 5 3 0 0 13 % 8% 16% 23% 0% 0% 10%

Total Count 66 32 13 8 7 126 Results from written consultation by Stakeholder group Do you agree that the timeline of the requirement for workers' representation is maintained as a core requirement starting at year 0?


Union/ NGO NFO

FLO/ FLO-CERT

All Groups

Yes, I agree. Count 45 20 9 6 6 86 % 68% 63% 69% 75% 86% 68%



No answer Count 6 6 3 0 0 15 % 9% 19% 23% 0% 0% 12%

Total Count 66 32 13 8 7 126 Results from written consultation by Stakeholder group

8

Worker responses from questionnaires and supported by workshop feedback1. Workers : Most workers agree with this proposal, and are keen to continue choosing the way they are represented and that this is not imposed externally. They value the existence of a workers’ organization to establish a relationship and facilitate coordination between workers and management that also solves minor problems with the organization. Workers in workshops also discussed and expressed how the different forms of organization work and their preferences, where a vast diversity of opinions could be observed. The actual preference however is not the intention of this consultation, but it did confirm the assumption that establishing a predefined closed solution for all is not advisable Producers : This topic was discussed in workshops with management of certified farms in all regions in addition to its inclusion in the questionnaire. All certified farms already have some sort of worker representation in place and therefore many consulted parties felt this would not apply to them. Most value the fact that there is worker representation at first certification, as this brings legitimacy to the process. Additionally, there is general understanding that that there are workers who need to be able to decide which type of representation they prefer, in order to cater to different local realities and with particular consideration of structure and relation of workers and management with local unions. On farms where workers have opted for Workers’ Committees as their chosen form of representation, management highlighted that Fairtrade should not force a different set up. There are producers of the opinion however that Fairtrade should be more explicit on the structure for how workers organize, as otherwise is very difficult to work together with workers, or this may be abused by opportunistic parties and it will potentially be difficult for certification. This concept is linked to what is said below by other parties for the need to better define what “at a very basic level” means. Also brought up was the fact that the problem is not necessarily the choice of representation, rather support (not interference) from management is still considered important in the situations of low literacy rates for example. Traders/retailers agreed by a strong to the fact that workers should define the structure of their representation. One respondent reminds us of the importance of maintaining the preference to organising in trade unions within global union federations. Trade unions/NGO: In general this group agrees with the fact that Fairtrade (or others) should not define the structure in which workers should organize and that workers themselves must have the freedom to decide. It is recognised that groups of workers in different contexts may organize differently and also that there is a broad scope for what can be considered independent and democratic organisations and sometimes these organisations are referred to by other names than unions. Further, it is pointed out that this requirement is additional to the general requirement to respect FoA, which is a basic human right. 1 Questionnaires for workers were designed to support workshops as a method to corroborate discussions with quantifiable data. However, because the completion of questionnaires was inconsistent and in many cases from 1 to 5 or more participants completed a single questionnaire, results are not statistically robust. Rather they give a broad picture of participants’ responses and support workshop responses.

9

Despite majority support there are however also important concerns: that alternatives to trade unions should not be promoted as such in the Standard which might be implicit by the way the draft standard is worded; and that independence and democracy are necessary, but not sufficient, as an essential part of a worker organisation is that they should be able to carry out collective bargaining which includes the enforcement of collective agreements (and for this the organisation must be usually legalised). There are concerns about the concept of “very basic level” as it is considered inappropriately unclear. It is also mentioned that the guidance could discourage forms of worker representation which the ILO has ruled are incompatible with Freedom of Association, notably the solidarity organisations in Costa Rica. NFO/FLO/FLO-cert: Responses in general from this group agree as a matter of principle with FT not dictating the form which workers choose to organise. There is also general understanding that there are very different national realities where legal registration might be an issue. However a few factors are pointed out that should be considered with regards to the relationship between trade unions and workers committees. Fairtrade should clearly work towards independent AND legally registered workers organizations and make a clear point that Fairtrade should “be mindful of the risk of strengthening Workers Committees to such an extent that they subvert efforts to organise workers independently.” To ensure this it is encouraged that Fairtrade “builds stronger partnerships with local trade unions in order to align strategies on worker empowerment,” and that “Unions/Workers Committees are legally registered under the appropriate ministry (usually the Ministry of Labour) within a specific time frame (e.g. one year from certification).” In conclusion, there is vast agreement with the pri nciple workers themselves should decide how they organize, and there is substantial support that this already happens at initial certification. There are however concerns and propo sals to better define what is acceptable representation, how to provide more clarity to work ers and management on how to organize, and how to prevent that this openness is misused to impose less than effective representation that is not authorized to bargain collectively.

3. Trade unions invited to inform on activities To ensure that workers are adequately informed about the work of trade unions and to support workers’ representation at initial certification, it is proposed to require that companies have to invite trade union representatives to inform workers about their activities so they can make knowledgeable decisions.

3.4.5 Your company must invite trade union representatives prior to certification to inform workers about trade unions and the benefits of unionization. It must be noted that this is already required in practice for newly certified farms where there is no union present, it will however be new to farms that have been in the system for long and no union was ever present there.

10

Worker responses from questionnaires and supported by workshop feedback Workers: Workers were consulted on the topic via workshops and interviews, and the question was repeated in written questionnaires to cross-check the results obtained, as defined in the methodology. The responses varied widely from country to country, depending on the structure of worker representation and experiences of the workers with them. In Colombia most farms are already unionised so this requirement would not apply to them. It was however discussed for new farms and responses were generally positive that union support was welcome. However some responses indicated a distrust of unions and did not see this as a positive requirement. In Ecuador there was a unanimous opposition from worker in flower farms to invite unions, they related bad experiences and fear that Premium money will be taken. In Dominican Republic workers were concerned that they would be responsible to invite unions themselves, but when clarified that it was actually management who is responsible for extending the invitation, and that workers would not be singled out, most considered that it would be beneficial for them. In Argentina and Chile, responses were positive, with one commenting that improved communication with unions would be welcome. Throughout Africa (Kenya, RSA, Zimbabwe) there was mostly support to the proposal, as a means to facilitate their knowledge about their rights and empowerment, and as a way to have an easier access to unions as it can take considerable time to establish contact with them. There were some minority voices, mostly from workers on farms with workers’ committees that did not see the need to invite unions now as they feel the representation with WC is working for them. In Sri Lanka, most workers are represented by trade unions (98%), and all were in favour of union representation and most agreed that they should be invited. In the workshops in India the opinion was quite mixed. The majority of workers are represented by unions and the value was recognised. However, there are multiple unions and these are linked to different political parties. It was therefore flagged that if particular unions are not already present in the farm they should not be invited as that would create conflict. In Pakistan they agreed that TU should be invited to support worker awareness. Producers : The majority of producers disagree with the proposal, with some regional differences: there is more opposition amongst Latin America and Asian producers than amongst Africans.

11

Do you agree to include a requirement that trade unions have to be invited to the workplace to inform about their activities prior to initial certification?


Union/ NGO NFO

FLO/ FLO-CERT

All Groups

Yes, I agree. Count 19 14 9 8 5 55 % 29% 44% 69% 100% 71% 44%



No answer Count 5 5 3 0 0 13 % 8% 16% 23% 0% 0% 10%

Total Count 66 32 13 8 7 126 Results from written consultation by Stakeholder group Q8. Do you agree to include a requirement that trade unions have to be invited to the workplace to inform about their activities prior to initial certification?

Africa Asia Latin America

All Regions

Yes, I agree. Count 11 4 4 19 % 41% 20% 21% 29%

No, I don't agree. Count 13 11 13 37 % 48% 55% 68% 56%

I don't have an opinion. Count 2 3 0 5 % 7% 15% 0% 8%

No answer Count 1 2 2 5 % 4% 10% 11% 8%

Total Count 27 20 19 66 Results from written consultation by Stakeholder group The Latin American farms that agree are for the most part already unionised. Those that did not agree argue that this is not real freedom for workers; that in some cases there are no relevant unions available to worker and some have bad experiences with the unions they are familiar with. There are repeated suggestions to invite Ministry of Labour representatives for an impartial view. Particularly in Ecuador the results of workshops was a strong and unanimous opposition to the proposal. There is even more opposition amongst Asian producers, arguing that because of the affiliation between unions and political parties, inviting more than one union, or a union that is not in current political favour may lead to confrontation and unhealthy competition. The invitation of several unions is seen as counterproductive. In the case of African producers the opinion is almost divided in half. It is considered positive by some in terms of empowerment and to guarantee better informed decisions. Others however see that it has the potential to confuse roles and gives the union a very predominant role in the ruling of Fairtrade including a Fairtrade union in the farm. It is proposed that the same information should be provided by the LO. Traders/retailers: A slight majority of traders and retailers agree with the proposal, however opinions are quite divided. The arguments in favour are that workers will receive information on their rights and also opportunities to get help to establish their representation early on, at certification. It is also considered a basic exercise with no obligations following the initial presentation and is therefore a reasonable requirement. The disagreement with the proposal is based on the argument that this in fact contradicts actual free choice, and that this should be a choice of workers depending on context and preferences, and an invitation from management to unions may be seen as imposing information on

12

workers. There is also the consideration that not all unions in all countries are free from corruption and politicization, and there is fear that in these cases it will be counterproductive and might also drive some farms out of Fairtrade. There is an alternative proposal to invite ILO representatives to inform workers of their rights and benefits of unionisation. Trade unions/NGO: Almost all NGOs and trade unions agree with the proposed requirement as a way to ensure best first- hand information. There is one single proposal in this category to postpone this to year 1 as it is argued that experience suggests it will be more effective if union access happens after certification, allowing for a process of dialogue and discussions with local unions, and giving Fairtrade the ability to intervene with training for workers in their rights at work before. NFOs and FLO almost all agree with the proposal because with it management clearly demonstrates willingness to accept FoA thus workers know about their rights directly from an independent source. There are however questions on how this would be done in the case there are several unions, or none available, and how to attend to workers preference in case they do not want this to happen. In conclusion, there is an important division towar ds this proposal that depends strongly on the particular regional or national structure of un ionisation and on how unions are perceived by workers and by management. There is strong recog nition of the value that this proposal brings, but at the same time there is the argument that by imposing this true freedom is not respected and a fully independent body would be pre ferred. However it is still seen as the most effective way for workers to have first-hand inform ation and to guarantee that freedom of association, including for unionisation, is respect ed.

4. How can workers organize themselves without the interference of management There was a very strong response to this question with almost all stakeholder contributing their thoughts and ideas. There were no main distinct differences between the different stakeholder groups and the major conclusions are summarized below.

It was determined that the workers would need training, during working hours, and that this could be something that could be included in the FoA protocol, on:

• Fairtrade and how it works • Freedom of association • Labour laws • Rules and responsibilities of workers representatives • Function and performance of workers representatives •

Further suggestions for these trainings included that they:

• Use appropriate student-centered methodologies, e.g. study circles • Are delivered by trade unions, labour rights organizations, the appropriate public ministry or

the Liaison Officers/PSR. • Should include joint trainings for all workers, but also breakout sessions for groups of men and

women to hear gender specific concerns and give gender specific advice and training. • Exchange visits for workers’ representatives to meet with union stewards on farms with unions

may help workers’ reps understand the advantages of being in a union. • Notice boards and space assigned specifically for the union/workers representatives •

Other suggestions were that a Fairtrade and FLO-cert become more involved which might include:

• The development of guidelines that compel management to encourage workers to organize themselves

• Fairtrade engaging in an intensive instruction of the workers representatives body • Awareness raising and a best practice approach.

13

• Development of specific training courses together with the trade union bodies and other organisations

The only significant difference in opinion came from a few of the producers who thought that this would be impossible to achieve without some kind of input from management.

One producer respondent suggested that to make the workers directly responsible the Premium should be held back until they had clearly organized themselves.

A trader suggested that this requirement was much more complicated on plantations and should not be under the body of Fairtrade. They went on to highlight that ‘here are union activists and plantation level work that is being done on a more powerful level outside of the Fairtrade system. Engaging with these key players is key if plantations continue. Co-ownership models could also be interesting where the management / owners partially sell some of the land to the workers. There are unique models like this emerging in India with the creative thinking of Trade Promoters of India that are successful and get at the issue of limited empowerment due to management ownership and control.’

In conclusion, the majority of stakeholders feel th at in order to ensure that workers organize themselves without the interference of management t raining for them is essential. However amendments were suggested that this is done by trad e unions, independent organizations, public ministries, and there should be input from F airtrade/FLO in terms of guidance, best practice and specific training.

5. Freedom of Association Protocol – content

The global Hired Labour strategy recommends that rather than passive acceptance of freedom of association, there should be an active acceptance of FoA rights by certified companies. It is proposed to achieve this with the introduction of a Freedom of Association protocol that has to be signed by the employer. 3.4.2 Your company must sign the Freedom of Association protocol which states that your company:

• respects the right of all workers to form or join trade unions,

• respects the right of workers to bargain collectively in practice,

• shall not engage in any acts of anti-union discrimination or in any acts of interference,

• shall not deny access rights for trade unions,

• accepts that it has a duty to bargain in good faith with unions, • informs the workforce about the local point of contact and posts relevant contact information in the

workplace for all workers to see and understand.

Your company must not deny these rights in practice; further your company must not have opposed any of

these rights in the last 2 years.

In case the ownership or senior management of a company changes, the FoA protocol must be signed by then

new owners/management within 3 months.

There is general agreement from all stakeholders, but there are some opposing views with insightful comments.

Do you agree with the content of the Freedom of Association? Producer Trader/

Retailer Union/ NGO NFO

FLO/ FLO-CERT

All Groups

Yes, I agree. Count 30 14 7 7 6 64 % 45% 44% 54% 88% 86% 51%

No, I don't agree. Count 17 6 1 1 1 26

14

% 26% 19% 8% 13% 14% 21%


No answer Count 10 6 4 0 0 20 % 15% 19% 31% 0% 0% 16%

Total Count 66 32 13 8 7 126 Results from written consultation by Stakeholder group Producers : This is the most divided stakeholder group, with a slight majority of support for the proposed requirement, while a number of stakeholders contributed critical disagreement. It is supported as a way to guarantee rights of workers. Further many companies say it is already being implemented in practice and therefore another redundant piece of paper that producers have to sign. On the other hand some argue that is unnecessary as it is already covered by local legislation and also checked in FLO-CERT audits. It is also considered by some to use language that is too negative that assumes there is by default a problem with unions instead of assuming the good will of companies. One stakeholder states that the “inflammatory” language does not lead to harmonious relationships and it is too strongly supporting unionisation over other forms of organisation. Traders/retailers: There is a majority of positive responses as the protocol includes clear commitments and ensures the robustness of the standard, but there are also some stakeholders who disagree, arguing that this is already considered in national legislations. While there is no doubt that FoA should be respected, the position of unions should not be artificially inflated by Fairtrade and one voice reminds that the existence of non-recognised/corrupt unions should recognized and their access denied. Unions/NGO: This stakeholder group agrees to the inclusion of the protocol, but have some detailed comments on the wording that must be taken into account. This includes choosing the ILO approved terminology for the translation of the protocol into Spanish. And suggestions such as that the FoA protocol should also stipulate that the Right to Unionise guarantee be distributed to all employees at the time that the FoA protocol is signed and to new employees on recruitment. NFO/FLO/FLO-cert: There is generally strong support for the content of the FoA protocol from this group, with reasoning that it is quite thorough and it strengthens the Standard while demonstrating a clear commitment unique to Fairtrade certification. It is noted that the protocol requires that companies new to Fairtrade must be committed to the key principles of Fairtrade in an early stage. Several comments were received in terms of wording, including the fact that the language could be more inclusive: defending workers’ rights but understanding managers/producers as allies in this. In conclusion, there is fundamental agreement with the concept of the Freedom of Association Protocol, but there are several comments on the con tent and tone of the wording, and the actual need for the protocol is challenged as FoA i s already part of the Standard.

6. Companies must sign the Freedom of Association P rotocol

The answers follow essentially the same trend and rationale of the previous question but with a higher percentage of positive answers. Those who saw no value in the protocol or strongly challenged the content disagreed also with the requirement that companies must sign the protocol. However, a number that did disagree with some of the content were still in favour of the signature, provided changes are considered.

Q11. Do you agree that certified companies must sign the Freedom of Association protocol?


Union/ NGO NFO

FLO/ FLO-CERT

All Groups

Yes, I agree. Count 33 17 9 8 6 73 % 50% 53% 69% 100% 86% 58%

15



No answer Count 11 6 4 0 0 21 % 17% 19% 31% 0% 0% 17%


7. Communicating Right to unionize guarantee

To further ensure company commitment to the Freedom of Association, the new draft Standard proposes to require that employers actively inform workers of their rights through a Right to Unionize Guarantee that is included in the FoA protocol.

3.4.3 Workers’ right to unionize guarantee, which is included in the Freedom of Association protocol must be communicated to workers by at least

• translating it into the appropriate languages, • explaining it in full to workers, • displaying it on all workers’ notice boards.

More than half of the responses from all stakeholder groups agree with this proposed requirement. There is however a certain degree of resistance, primarily coming from producers.

Do you agree that certified companies must communicate the right to unionize guarantee to workers by translating it into the appropriate languages, explaining it in full to workers and displaying it on all workers' notice boards?


Union/ NGO NFO

FLO/ FLO-CERT

All Groups

Yes, I agree. Count 39 20 9 8 7 83 % 59% 63% 69% 100% 100% 66%



No answer Count 10 6 4 0 0 20 % 15% 19% 31% 0% 0% 16%

Total Count 66 32 13 8 7 126 Results from written consultation by Stakeholder group Producers: Most producers agreed with this proposal, but there is also an significant number of responses in disagreement, for the most part from Asia and to a lesser extent from Africa and Latin America. Those in agreement stated that it does convey a positive acceptance of the company towards FoA “When companies communicate the right to unionize guarantee it is a strong statement of intent to empower their workers”, and will help workers knowing their rights. The reasons against the right to unionize guarantee are similar to the dissenting responses to the previous questions on the protocol: it is seen as unnecessary as it is already covered by law and by

16

the standards and therefore already audited; the workers already know their rights; there is a preference for the wording not to be limited to unions but to wider forms of organisation. Traders/retailers : There is an important majority of traders and retailers agreeing with this new measure, with limited exceptions, being considered a reasonable requirement to ensure the robustness of the standard Union/NGO: There is very strong support from this stakeholder group. The rationale for the positive views is generally that the guarantee will reassure workers that they will not be victimised if they join or form a trade union. NFO/FLO/FLO-cert : There is a unanimous positive response to this proposal from this group. This proposal is seen as a good awareness raising tool and because as one respondent points out, because studies show that there is still a widespread concern among workers that “joining a union might jeopardise their jobs.” An additional proposal shared by several respondents that written communication is complemented by verbal communication by senior management so this is better understood and more credible. In conclusion, there is overall positive support fo r the proposed requirement that employers must actively communicate workers’ rights to unioni ze.

8. Local point of contact The global HL strategy proposes to “identify regional and where appropriate national or sectorial Points of Contact for workers that can offer information and advice on workers’ rights, social dialogue and conflict management.” It is proposed that the local point of contact will be designated by Fairtrade International and is intended to support workers in knowing and understanding their rights, and support workers to establish and operate trade unions. It is suggested to include the reference to this local point of contact in the FoA protocol and that companies must inform the workforce about this contact and post relevant contact information in the workplace for all workers to see and understand. In addition to that, there are also several references to the local point of contact in the guidance of several Standard requirements as a support, but is not mandatory. There is overall support for this proposal, with some general concern as to how the local point of contact would be determined. Do you agree that the certified company must inform the workforce about the local point of contact and post relevant contact information in the workplace for all workers to see and understand?


Union/ NGO NFO

FLO/ FLO-CERT

All Groups

Yes, I agree. Count 34 22 6 7 6 75 % 52% 69% 46% 88% 86% 60%



No answer Count 10 6 5 1 0 22 % 15% 19% 38% 13% 0% 17%


17

Producers: More than half of the respondents in this group were sceptical the local point of contact, with the main reasoning being that there are already unions present in the work place, Fairtrade staff also provides information to workers on their rights and a third party could be disruptive at worst and redundant at best. Those in favour felt this would be beneficial to workers and help satisfy certification requirements on providing information on FoA. This could also be another means for training the Joint Body. Others felt that there was not enough information on how the contact would be determined and could not make a rational decision on this. Suggestions include that this contact should be determined by the ministry of labour. Traders/retailers : This group was generally in favour of the inclusion of the local point of contact as an unbiased third party to provide information that is not involved directly with the company. However, there was warning against favouring one union over another for this role, again emphasizing the importance for impartiality in this case. Union/NGO: Of those answers received from this group, besides seeing this as positive for labour relations, there was a strong warning that, “[a]n inappropriate contact point could do more harm than good. Moreover this is an untested idea.” Further, this “needs further discussion to define relationship with local and national trade union[s]” and a pilot project was suggested. NFO/FLO/FLO-cert : There was full support from this group on the proposed requirement for those who had an opinion. Reasons included that this ensures management commitment to workers’ rights, it strengthens the independence of workers’ organizations, and “potentially builds links between different Fairtrade Certified HL situations which may otherwise be operating in isolation from each other – potentially this creates impetus for regional empowerment and expansion of certification.” In conclusion, this requirement was seen as a posit ive development for ensuring support for workers, but it was suggested that how the point of contact is determined be better outlined in the Standard.

9. Allowing 30% of Fairtrade Premium to be distribu ted as cash or cash equivalent The current HL Standard prohibits the use of the Fairtrade Premium for individual payments to workers in cash or in-kind. Numerous voices in the Fairtrade system have requested that the rules for Premium use are more flexible. According to the global HL strategy, the rules should be adjusted to support Fairtrade’s effort to move towards a living wage. Further, flexible Premium use would also empower workers to decide more freely how Premium is used to best address their needs. This includes migrant and temporary workers who currently are not able to fully take advantage of Fairtrade collective projects and therefore would benefit from a more flexible Premium distribution. Following the global HL strategy, Fairtrade is proposing to open Premium use in Hired Labour set-ups to limited cash distributions. Nevertheless, the strategy points out, “changing the basic concept of Premium could have unintended consequences for the Fairtrade system, it is recommended that these strategies be tested first in pilot projects.” It is therefore proposed in the draft Standard that only a limited percentage of total annual Premium of up to 30% can be distributed as cash or cash equivalent to workers.

2.1.22 Up to 30% of Fairtrade Premium money per year can be distributed in cash or as cash equivalent payments to workers. Guidance: Workers themselves should be empowered to decide how best to use Premium money in order to improve their livelihoods. The intention of this limitation is to prevent that Fairtrade Premium is used to supplement regular wages, which can potentially undermine collective bargaining processes. Cash equivalent means some article that is intended to be used instead of cash or understood as a salary supplement. For example, vouchers to buy goods, gift certificates, travel coupons, phone credit, fuel and food boxes except in force majeure situations, etc.

18

Although overall a small majority of workers were against more flexible use of the Premium (65%), views on the whole were divided with strong opinions both for and against. Cash was a contentious word for many and while some disagreed with giving out cash, they agreed to the distribution of cash equivalent, or in kind. Similarly those who agree to more lenient use of the Premium, disagreed to cash but would accept cash equivalent.

Worker responses from questionnaires and supported by workshop feedback Workers: A major reason amongst workers against giving out the Premium out as cash was concern that it would not be used responsibly; for long term projects or to improve peoples‘ quality of life, and it might even be misused e.g. for drugs and alcohol. There was also concern that if cash was distributed it would be liable to tax deductions, and also that workers would lose bonus payments and other benefits as the Premium payments would be seen by management to replace the need for these. Another reason, shared by many of the workers who disagreed with the proposed requirement, was that people were in favour of the community projects that the Premium was currently used for and perceived far more long term advantages from these. Using the Premium for projects allowed not just a direct profit for a worker but wider benefit for families and community. If 30% of the funds were lost to cash pay-outs it would greatly decrease the budget for projects. Latin American workers were strongly in favour of the community projects while some specifically stated they wanted 100% of the Premium to be used for projects, and disagreed wholly with giving out any of it as cash or cash equivalent. Workers support for sharing out 30% of the Premium was mainly out of concern for migrant workers and that this would allow them to benefit from the cash when they could not benefit from the community projects e.g. in Dominican Republic workers were strongly in favour of 30% cash. In southern India, the majority of workers preferred cash because the state already provides many of the social benefits that Premium delivers elsewhere. Also, for those not living on the farm, they felt that they did not currently benefit from the Premium, and would prefer a direct benefit of cash. There was concern though that the amount of cash per worker would realistically be very little if it were shared out. Others thought that the cash would also greatly help the permanent workers, as wages that were paid were too low to provide a good quality of life. However, once again, several of those who agreed to 30% of the Premium being shared out stated that it should not be as cash but as cash equivalent. Additional suggestions for use of the Premium were; to put the 30% into fixed deposit accounts and use it for retirement, to distribute it once a year and only to migrant workers, and to ensure that migrant workers had worked for several seasons before they qualified for a cash payment. Producers: Consultations with producers showed a similar trend to workers with a small majority against the concept of flexible Premium, and more specifically, against the idea of cash which most thought would be seen as an addition to wages and taxed accordingly. There was support for cash equivalent while others still strongly believed that the Premium should only be for community development and that more flexibility would lead to disparity between farms and conflict amongst workers.

19

Do you agree that it should be allowed that workers have the option to decide to use up to 30% of the Fairtrade Premium money per year as cash or cash equivalent?


Union/ NGO NFO

FLO/ FLO-CERT

All Groups

Yes, I agree. Count 25 14 6 5 4 54 % 38% 44% 46% 63% 57% 43%


No answer Count 10 6 6 0 0 22 % 15% 19% 46% 0% 0% 17%

Total Count 66 32 13 8 7 126 Results from written consultation by Stakeholder group The management workshops in in Colombia and in Ecuador rejected the proposed requirement. Where there was no migrant workforce they saw no reason to change the way things are now. They perceived that the change would have a negative effect on the impact of the Premium use, and that this would be against the Fairtrade principles. There was concern that workers, who are paid by piece work would have no incentive to work if they received funds from the Premium and they would misuse it. Moreover distribution of cash would create two classes of worker in the surrounding area (Fairtrade and non-Fairtrade workers) with different incomes. They suggested that instead cash could be given out for special cases as exceptions when there was a real problem. Ecuador producers said that in the case of banana farms where the Premiums were higher, ‘in kind projects’ but not in kind payments would be acceptable. Producers in favour of distributing cash thought that the workers should have the freedom to decide what to with Premium money, and that this would be of a great help to them. Those who did not agree with direct cash supported rather a more flexible use of the Premium. In Dominican Republic all producers agreed to the Premium being distributed ‘in kind’ and most of them agreed to 30% being distributed as cash, again highlighting the differences in areas with migrant workers and the need to support them in some way. Traders and retailers opinions were split right down the middle, however, they had a strong overall voice against the Premium money being used to cover a living wage and stressed that the Fairtrade system should be looking to apply pressure on companies, industries and governments to pay a fair wage rather than taking a percentage of the Premium for salaries. They believe that it is the minimum price that should be reflecting a living wages for the workers and not the Premium. On the other hand they understood that workers might need the 30% where they were not being paid enough and that if it was clearly not a wage substitute then the Premium could be distributed as the workers decided. A pilot project was requested before the inclusion in the full standard The trade unions and NGO’s consulted were strongly in favour of the more flexible use of the Premium with added input. One warned that there must be a more stringent policy put into place to guard against Premium misuse by Fairtrade companies and their capital investment. Others gave strong support to push for a living wage from the employer rather than using Premium to cover this and also suggested that discussions on the use of the Premium need to go alongside the discussion on a review of Fairtrade pricing policies to ensure they are based on real calculations of living wages. Only one disagreed strongly, stating that opening up the Premium would have ‘pernicious unintended consequences’ and would create the very real risk that both collective bargaining and union organisation will be undermined. They advised that any cash payments should be limited, and that workers should be able to earn a living wage without the Premium.

20

Similarly, the majority of those who contributed to the consultation from FLO and NFO’s agreed that workers should have more flexible use of the Premium. Distribution of cash was perceived as empowering the workers and providing immediate, tangible Fairtrade benefit to workers and consequently strengthening the motivation of Fairtrade certification. However, almost everyone who agreed also made several comments of caution. Again, there was a lot of concern around ensuring that the cash was not used to ‘top up’ salaries, that it did not detract from the living wage issue and did not undermine collective bargaining. While some perceived that cash distribution empowered workers there was also fear that it would undermine the workers organisational strengthening and that efforts to drive the understanding that joint power makes change would be diminished if Fairtrade returned to allowing individual gain from the Premium. Cash equivalent was seen by a strong majority of FLO and NFO’s as preferable to direct cash to avoid both tax management and conflicts. Other suggestions made were that the Premium distribution be allowed for those with high Premiums, or with many years of experience and successful Premium projects and that it could be considered a semi-reward system for innovative projects and impact in the community, linking it into both M&E and the Fairtrade Development Plan. Another suggestion was made to carry out a cost benefit analysis to assess the potential of an employer to pay a living wage to their workers to determine first if the Premium should be given out as cash or not. The % was also considered too high and recommendations were given to reduce it to as low as 10%. Pilot testing was again recommended before officially endorsing the 30% distribution across the world, giving a warning to look at the SPO’s first where Premium cash is allowed yet there is almost zero impact to show for Premium use and both conflicts and deep divisions have arisen when deciding how to share the money. In conclusion, there was divided support for and ag ainst allowing 30% of the Premium to be distributed as cash or cash equivalent, with a work er voice against cash distribution. There was overall consensus on the following points

• Community projects benefit both workers and their c ommunity in a positive way; • Workers should be empowered to make the decision of the Premium themselves; • Major concerns about the effect that cash distribut ion would have on the living wage

issue and on the organisation of workers; • Strong support for cash equivalent rather than dire ct cash; • Migrant workers benefit from the Premium, in some w ay.

10. Ensuring that the collective bargaining is not undermined by cash distribution It was identified as a risk that cash distribution might undermine the collective bargaining process as it indirectly increases the available household income of the workforce. It is therefore suggested that if cash distribution of the Premium is allowable as per the Standard, the following requirement is included:

2.1.23 In the case that Premium money is proposed to be distributed in cash or cash equivalent to workers, the Premium Committee must consult with elected workers’ representatives to ensure that the collective bargaining process is not undermined.

This is meant to create linkages between the Premium Committee and worker representatives elected for collective bargaining (trade union representatives) and allow for workers to better meet their needs while not weakening any on-going wage negotiations.

21

Worker responses from questionnaires and supported by workshop feedback Workers: Opinions overall from the workers were divided. When separated into regions it was clear that in Africa most people were keen to ensure that the trade union was informed so that there was no effect on the collective bargaining process, while in Asia and South America the support for informing the workers representatives was far less, and they preferred that the trade unions stay separate and not at all involved. Many people simply found this question difficult and used it instead to add in more comments on the distribution of cash, the majority of which disagreed with the distribution of direct cash. Although the majority of the different stakeholder groups were in favour, overall, that if cash was to be distributed, the workers representatives must be consulted, there was a similar divide between the regions with a much stronger agreement in Africa, an equal agreement and disagreement in Asia and a small majority disagreement in Latin America. Those who strongly opposed the distribution of cash, again, reiterated their point here. Do you agree that if Premium money is proposed to be distributed in cash or cash equivalent to workers, the PC must consult with elected workers’ representatives (TU) to ensure that the collective bargaining process is not undermined?


Union/ NGO NFO

FLO/ FLO-CERT

All Groups

Yes, I agree. Count 32 14 5 7 4 62 % 48% 44% 38% 88% 57% 49%



No answer Count 10 5 6 0 0 21 % 15% 16% 46% 0% 0% 17%

Total Count 66 32 13 8 7 126 Results from written consultation by Stakeholder group Producers: Analysing the consultation questionnaire and management workshops demonstrated that the majority of the Producers agreed to the proposed requirement to compliment the distribution of cash, pointing out that the CBA must not be undermined and therefore the trade union would have to be informed or consulted.

22

Union/NGO: The trade unions agreed on this proposed requirement, and commented that the trade union representatives should always be a part of the Fairtrade Premium Committee as they have already been elected by the workers to represent them and the Premium Committee should not be a rival to the trade union branch, but the FPC should rather have the right to ask advice from the trade union. One voice was concerned that it would be very difficult for the trade union to oppose cash payments even if they are undermining trade union recruitment and that it would lead to the trade union being played off against the Premium Committee and being portrayed as not acting in the workers’ interest. Those who opposed involving the trade union stressed that because the Collective Bargaining Agreement was very different to the Premium, the two should be completely divorced and if mixed up the trade union would only complicate matters. While reservations were given that the trade unions would undermine the Fairtrade Premium Committee through getting involved in its management and control, another opinion was that however the union might try to influence the FPC, it would ultimately be governed by the general assembly which is more powerful that any union. Traders and retailers had a fairly balanced view on the proposed requirement, with most agreeing that this would be a safeguard to ensuring that the cash was spent appropriately, and a few feeling that it would be of no consequence or would lead to the committees fighting over the cash. NFO/FLO/FLO-cert : FLO opinions were divided on the need to consult with the union before distributing cash. While agreement with the proposed requirement felt it would take into consideration the perspective on cost-benefit analyses determining whether or not cash should be distributed, another perceived that it would dilute the impact of the objective of the Premium and the process would be complex and create conflicts. An example was given where tensions had arisen between workers committees and union representatives because the union had felt less important than the FPC members because they did not have money. It was also pointed out that there is a danger that the Premium is channelled towards workers' rights issues which, while they are important, are not the only needs the workers face in their communities. In Argentina, collective bargaining agreements for salary setting, social benefits and all other working conditions are made at the industry level once a year by unions on behalf of ALL workers in the sector whether they are unionised or not, and so this would have no effect or necessity. The NFO’s were strongly in favour of the trade union being consulted first and one vote stated that consulting was not enough, and that the two bodies should be at least interlinked to be more efficient. In conclusion, there is support for adding the requ irement that elected workers’ representatives/trade union representatives are con sulted to ensure that collective bargaining is not undermined if a flexible Premium use is intr oduced in the Standard. There was however a regional difference with Asia and Latin America s eeing much less of a need to involve the workers representatives either due to the trade uni ons being too politicised or because the wage structure was already agreed upon by the secto r thus Premium distribution would therefore not affect the bargaining process.

11. General Assembly of workers held once a year A general assembly of workers is mentioned in the current explanatory document for the Fairtrade Premium and Joint Body in HL situations: The Joint Body is expected to have at least an annual General Assembly with all the workers. The purpose of this meeting is to report to all the workers about the previous year’s projects and activities, to present the financial reports, and to present the work plan for the following year. The Fairtrade Premium work plan is democratically approved in advance by the General Assembly of workers. For very large organizations, it is possible to put a delegate system in place, so that general assembly meetings can be held within a reasonable cost frame. This guidance was translated by into a compliance criterion, and it is common practice in all regions. However, holding a general assembly is currently not formally required in the HL Standard. In

23

order to align current practice and strengthen worker empowerment, the SU therefore recommends including a requirement on a general assembly for workers in the HL Standard. This should not add an additional burden to companies as it is already required in practice.

2.1.18 Your company must ensure that the Premium Committee leads a general assembly of all workers at least once a year. The purpose of the GA is to report on (see requirement 2.1.20) and democratically approve the Fairtrade Premium Plan. Guidance: It is possible that the Premium Plan may need to be changed in between general assembly meetings. This might be necessary in situations where, for example, you receive more or less Fairtrade Premium money than planned, or where members or the community are affected by an unexpected event and you wish to respond. If this happens, you will need to document the decisions to make the changes, and explain the changes and get ratification from the general assembly retrospectively. The general assembly should be held during the year when the majority of the workforce is present. A delegate system can be put in place where appropriate to ensure representation of all workers in the case of a large workforce, as defined in the terms of reference of the Premium Committee (see requirement 2.1.4). (Core Year 1)

Do you agree a general assembly of all workers is held at least once a year? Producer Trader/


FLO/ FLO-CERT

All Groups

Yes, I agree. Count 48 21 5 8 7 89 % 73% 66% 38% 100% 100% 71%



No answer Count 10 6 6 0 0 22 % 15% 19% 46% 0% 0% 17%

Total Count 66 32 13 8 7 126 Results from written consultation by Stakeholder group In conclusion, there was a very strong overall majo rity for the general assembly to be included formally as a requirement in the Standard. This was deemed essential for participation and transparency, and many of the JB/Premium Committees are already doing this. For consideration are the concerns that were raised re garding clarity of the delegate system and how it works in practicality.

12. Management voting rights in the Joint Body (Pre mium Committee) The name “Joint Body” for the committee that manages the Fairtrade Premium on behalf of the workers has often led to confusion in the past. The name has been changed in the new draft to “Fairtrade Premium Committee” to better reflect the role and purpose of this committee. Based on the global HL strategy to enhance the governance of Premium, the following change to the HL standard is proposed: management representatives have only an advisory role on the Fairtrade Premium Committee (Joint Body), instead of their current voting rights. Management representatives would maintain the right to block expenditure that potentially violate Fairtrade rules for Premium use or may be in conflict with company policy. This change strengthens the position and importance of workers in Premium decisions, while maintaining the advisory role for management as well as their right to veto Premium uses that are illegal or otherwise not allowed. This is in line with the current HL Standard that management supports and guides on Premium decisions.

24

2.1.14 Management must actively and responsibly participate in the Fairtrade Premium Committee through its representatives and must assist and support the workers in the management of the Fairtrade Premium. Management representatives do not have voting rights in the Fairtrade Premium Committee. They have the right to block expenditure that would violate Fairtrade rules for Premium use, if it is illegal or if it has a negative structural or financial impact on the company. Workers: Workshops held with workers in Latin America showed a majority opting to exclude management from having voting rights in the Fairtrade Premium Committee. Only in Ecuador was the vote split, with workers expressing that maintaining the vote for management was considered less important than the use of the veto right, and that in all cases management voting is in the minority and so their vote does not make a major difference. In Asia thoughts were divided with workers in Sri Lanka in favour of management being able to vote while in North India the majority felt that the Premium should be independent of management and that if management had a vote, workers would always listen to them and it would never be independent. The African workshops showed that opinions were equally divided.

Worker responses from questionnaires and supported by workshop feedback The workers questionnaires reflected similar patterns to the above with Africa and Latin America clearly in favour of proposed requirement and the small number who contributed in Asia against it. As rationale that management should have no voting rights on Premium use, the main argument mentioned by workers in the questionnaires is in essence that the Premium money belongs to the workers and therefore they should decide independently on how to spend it. It was also mentioned that management often does not know what the real needs of the workers are and that they have the veto right anyway. Some comments also show a stronger resentment of the management: “Sometimes it happens that management misguides workers”. “They must stay out of the JB.” “Management interferes.” However, comments also indicate that many workers value the guidance and support of management in the JB, even those who are in favour of the proposal. There seems to be concern that the support of the management in the JB will be lost if they don’t have a voting right. The comments also show that some workers expect that there will be more buy-in for implementation of projects from management if they can vote: “It helps them to be committed…”. “They feel that they are part of the committee and the decision making is from all the committee.” Other comments in favour of the management

25

retaining voting rights on Premium use include that the management has more experience of what is required by Standards, that they could contribute new ideas, and that it would create unity (between management and workers). Another point that was often mentioned is that workers have the majority anyway so they don’t mind the management voting. Concern was expressed over management having the final say on the Premium decision whether they are allowed to vote or not. Analysis of the other stakeholder groups consulted shows that the more respondents are in favour of the proposal that management representatives should not have voting rights in the Premium Committee/Joint Body. There is a quite clear majority of NFOs, traders/retailers, and Trade Unions/ NGOs in support of the proposal, while a narrow majority of producers are opposed to the proposal. Do you agree that management representatives should not have voting rights in the Fairtrade Premium Committee (JB)?


Union/ NGO NFO

FLO/ FLO-CERT

All Groups

Yes, I agree. Count 24 20 7 6 5 62 % 36% 63% 54% 75% 71% 49%



No answer Count 10 5 5 1 0 21 % 15% 16% 38% 13% 0% 17%

Total Count 66 32 13 8 7 126 Results from written consultation by Stakeholder group When looking at responses from different regions, Africa showed a small majority in favour of the proposal; respondents from Asia were divided, while Latin America gave a strong opposition. Do you agree that management representatives should not have voting rights in the Fairtrade Premium Committee (JB)?


All Regions

Yes, I agree. Count 13 9 2 24 % 48% 45% 11% 36%



No answer Count 3 3 4 10 % 11% 15% 21% 15%

Total Count 27 20 19 66 Results from written consultation by Stakeholder group Producers: Producer management workshops showed unanimous opposition to this proposal in Colombia on the grounds that it is seen as a proposal that regards management and workers as opponents. They point out that within the legal body; all representatives are legally accountable to the relevant authorities for the good use of the Premium. Ecuador and Kenya were also strongly opposed expressing again that this would draw battle lines between management and workers and that “to rid management of their voting rights in a group they equally belong to is demoralizing.” In the consultations questionnaires only a slight majority of producers were against the proposal but concern was again expressed that this proposal might alienate workers and management. One respondent said, “Fairtrade must remember that a successful workplace depends on workers and

26

management working towards similar goals and having aspirations to a successful Joint body and workplace”. And continuing that “a JB cannot exist without the employer … agreeing to be Fairtrade certified in the first place.” Several producers suggested that management at least needed to be able to vote until the Premium Committee had the capacity to enact independently. And those producers in favour agreed that the workers should make the decisions on the use of the Premium and were in favour of the clause that allowed management to be able to veto expenditure if need be. A major point throughout the consultations, with contributors who both agreed or disagreed, was that they did not perceive that the proposal would make much a difference either way as the management vote was already in the minority. Traders and retailers together with the Unions, NGOs and FLO/NFO were majorly in favour of the new requirement and that the proposal of no voting rights for management representative gives greater clarity that the Premium Committee is managing funds on behalf of the intended beneficiaries – farm workers and their communities and that by lessening management influence, committees will more effectively represent workers opinions. “… This helps prevent management domination and agenda setting, while still allowing maintenance of management oversight, recognising their beneficial skills & legal and perhaps Standards knowledge.” In conclusion, there is a general majority in favou r of the proposal, but there was notable opposition from parts of an important stakeholder g roup namely the management/owners of some certified plantations. Although this opinion w as not voiced by a large number of stakeholders it is understood that the proposal can be seen as confrontational or as “alienating” workers and management. The fact that workers who were in favour of managem ent voting comes mainly from workers in Sri Lanka and Pakistan could indicate that there ma y be cultural reasons or a particular situation in factories and tea gardens in those cou ntries. Support for the proposal from most of the workers t hemselves and “internal” stakeholders (NFOs and FLO-CERT) as well as union representative s are a strong argument for the proposal.

13. Workers’ rights to Premium money in the case of dissolution or decertification As there is currently no mechanism in the HL Standard that allows workers access to existent Premium money in the event that a company decertifies or is dissolved, the following requirement was proposed:

2.1.7 Upon establishment of the Fairtrade Premium account, your company must sign a legally binding agreement with the legal body registered to manage Fairtrade Premium (see requirement 2.1.3) that states that in case your company is decertified or dissolved, the balance of the Fairtrade Premium account must be used for the on-going and planned Premium projects or be distributed among the workers within 3 months after decertification.

Any money borrowed by the company from the Fairtrade Premium fund must also be repaid to the legal body within this 3 month timeframe to allow for its use or distribution. A strong majority agreed with this proposal, with only a few comments of precaution on implementation. One pointed out that this assumes that the legal body managing the Premium must also be dissolved if the company is dissolved, however this is not the case as it is independent and could continue to work. Another warned that the distribution of money might not be legal as the legal body would have to distribute the funds to a similar not for profit organization and not to individuals.

27

Do you agree with the introduction of a mechanism that allows workers access to existent Premium money in the event that a company decertifies or is dissolved?


Union/ NGO NFO

FLO/ FLO-CERT

All Groups

Yes, I agree. Count 46 22 8 8 6 90 % 70% 69% 62% 100% 86% 71%



No answer Count 11 5 5 0 0 21 % 17% 16% 38% 0% 0% 17%

Total Count 66 32 13 8 7 126 Results from written consultation by Stakeholder group In conclusion, this requirement has positive respon se, though is was recommended that legal considerations should be made if implemented.

14. Transfer of Premium money

In order to ensure a smooth transfer of Premium money to the Fairtrade Premium Committee (Joint Body) account, it is also suggested to introduce a requirement to regulate the legal transfer of Premium money to the Fairtrade Premium Committee (Joint Body). The proposed requirement states that:

2.1.5 If Fairtrade Premium is received by your company, then it must be transferred to the Fairtrade Premium accounts as soon as possible or in exceptional circumstances within 30 days.

Do you agree that Fairtrade Premium must be transferred to the Fairtrade Premium accounts as soon as possible or in exceptional circumstances within 30 days?


Union/ NGO NFO

FLO/ FLO-CERT

All Groups

Yes, I agree. Count 41 19 7 7 5 79 % 62% 59% 54% 88% 71% 63%



No answer Count 11 6 6 0 0 23 % 17% 19% 46% 0% 0% 18%

Total Count 66 32 13 8 7 126 Results from written consultation by Stakeholder group In conclusion, a strong majority from all stakehold er groups agreed with this proposal. The only comment from a producer suggested that 30 days might be considered too short and it was requested that it was extended.

15. Safety net above the extreme poverty level line set by the World Bank The rationale for introducing this requirement was a result of the Hired Labour strategy, as first step in the course to achieving a living wage. This safety net would apply to all certified farms everywhere in

28

the world. However, in reality, this would only be applicable in very few cases as in most countries the minimum wage is above this threshold.

3.5.2 If wages are below the extreme poverty line benchmark set by the World Bank, they must be increased to a level of $1.25 a day based on the purchasing power parity (PPP) of that amount in local currency. Even if there is a majority of positive responses to this question, the opinion is quite divided, with an important percentage not agreeing with the inclusion of this requirement. Do you agree with introducing a safety net in year 3 so that wages are at least above the extreme poverty level line set by the World Bank?


Union/ NGO NFO

FLO/ FLO-CERT

All Groups

Yes, I agree. Count 32 15 2 5 5 59 % 48% 47% 15% 63% 71% 47%



No answer Count 11 6 5 0 0 22 % 17% 19% 38% 0% 0% 17%

Total Count 66 32 13 8 7 126 Results from written consultation by Stakeholder group Producers: While a small majority of producers agree with the new requirement, there is still an important percentage that disagrees. In Latin America there is wide support given, as this is above minimum wage in all cases. In Africa and Asia most agree but an significant number still disagree arguing that it should be the CBA and the law that determines salaries and not the Standard. They explain that there are discrepancies between countries and minimum wages and also that Fairtrade certified farms cannot act differently from other farms and they must abide by the regular laws that apply to the industry. Traders/retailers: For traders and retailers the proposal to include this in year 3 is problematic. Most agree that a safety net is essential, but suggest that this is done earlier than year 3, and that a higher wage level is applied (2 USD/day is suggested). One voice however believes that this will be impossible in practice for some producers without wide sector engagement; as this will force smaller plantations and those with low Fairtrade sales out. This is however not corroborated by producers. NGO/Trade Unions: Similar arguments apply for trade unions and NGOs, with a proposal to include the safety net earlier than 3. They argue that Fairtrade should in no cases allow certified farms to pay wages below the extreme poverty line, with consideration both to the fairness to workers and to the credibility of Fairtrade. It is suggested rather that this is done in year 0, and that the poverty line (as opposed to the extreme poverty line) is taken as reference. NFO/FLO/FLO-cert: For NFOs and FLO even if all agree with the need to establish a safety net, the majority disagree with the benchmark chosen, as a) it is not relevant considering in most countries in the legal minimum wage is above that level and b) because it is not a correct reference (extreme poverty means extreme deprivation and that is incompatible with Fairtrade message. Many propose as an alternative to use 2USD/day as benchmark in year 1. One voice cautiously reminds that any increase should go hand in hand with the Minimum Price being able to support it. In conclusion there is important support for adding a safety net as a first step towards a living wage in line with the strategy, but amendments were suggested that the actual level and

29

timeline for implementation ought to be reconsidere d, as well as the feasibility of implementation of an alternative threshold.

16. Regular increase in wages by moving it to a cor e requirement in year 3 As another step in the process toward an improved standard of living for workers, Fairtrade proposes that:

3.5.5 Your company must regularly increase wage levels. Guidance: The wage increase is intended to raise wage levels to an eventual living wage.

The inclusion of this requirement is as above, the result of the Hired Labour strategy and is a concrete step in moving toward a living wage. The real change proposed with this requirement is moving the current requirement in the Standard from a progress to core requirement. Even if there is a slight majority of positive responses to this question, the opinion is very divided, with a high percentage not agreeing with the inclusion of this requirement. Q21. Do you agree with reinforcing a regular increase in wages by moving it to a core requirement in year 3?


Union/ NGO NFO

FLO/ FLO-CERT

All Groups

Yes, I agree. Count 22 11 6 5 5 49 % 33% 34% 46% 63% 71% 39%



No answer Count 12 6 5 1 0 24 % 18% 19% 38% 13% 0% 19%

Total Count 66 32 13 8 7 126 Results from written consultation by Stakeholder group Producers: When it comes to producers there is certain difference between regions. In Latin America and Asia there is general agreement, while in Africa producers mostly disagree, but in all cases opinions are still quite divided. In Latin America, where salaries in Fairtrade banana and flower farms are normally above the poverty line there is mostly agreement with the limitation that this should apply until the living wage is reached and not beyond. In the case of Asia as with the previous questions they either state this is already in place or remit to the national authorities and governing CBAs to take over responsibility, especially in groups with certified and non-certified estates within the same company. In Africa, as mentioned, it was mostly rejected on the basis of it not being affordable and also, in similarity with Asia, referring this to the role of unions and governments. It is also mentioned that because this proposal focuses only on wages and not other benefits, it might mean that other benefits need to be reduced. Traders/Retailers: A majority of traders and retailers disagree with the proposal, but there are still divided opinions. Those against it have concerns about affordability and would like to make it dependent on the commercial situation of the farm as well as on the development of the market in general, and link it to the Fairtrade Minimum Price. There is more support amongst FTOs. NGO/Trade Unions: There is important support from trade unions and NGOs in including this requirement as a step towards attaining living wages, however some see that the link is not enough and that companies will merely keep up with inflation rates and the proposed minimum wage and this

30

is not enough. There is a proposal for an alternative which reads “If wages are below agreed living wage benchmarks your company will ensure that real wages are rising year-on-year” NFO/FLO/FLO-cert: For NFOs and FLO there is more support than rejections. This is seen as a very important area for Fairtrade to focus, as impact studies, so far, find that despite important improvements in workings conditions, workers do not earn a living wage. However there are concerns about how this can be sustained. It should be Fairtrade sales that support the living wage and therefore there is a proposal to add that it will become applicable “contingent on increases on Fairtrade sales”. There is also recognition that this cannot be done in isolation, but needs the commitments from traders (in the GTS) and governments. The requirement should therefore be better linked to the definition of level and process towards a living wage. One message given was a warning that unwanted consequences such as job loss should be avoided, and not a consequence of Fairtrade requirements - job stability is as important, or more so, than higher wages. In conclusion the opinion is very divided, with sup port at conceptual level in most cases but important concerns that this gradual increase can b e implemented in the case of sector or national CBAs. There is a repeated reference to th e lack of clarity of living wage in the current proposal and therefore no proper feedback on the wh ole salary package is possible.

17. Negotiations to reach a living wage

Devising an effective way for reaching living wage levels in all Fairtrade farms is one of the key building blocks of the Hired Labour strategy that was approved by the Board. A development requirement for year 6 was proposed in the consultation:

3.5.6 Your company must negotiate with workers on how a living wage will be reached.

However, the translation of that goal in the draft standard has not been positively received by stakeholders, with an important majority disagreeing with the proposal. A wide range of reasons for this are offered which are explained further below. There are also a significant number of responses expressing uncertainty because the actual definition and formula for a living wage is not yet developed and respondents are therefore unsure what the requirement would actually really mean. Do you agree with the enforcement of a development requirement that negotiations to reach a living wage must be started in year 6?


Union/ NGO NFO

FLO/ FLO-CERT

All Groups

Yes, I agree. Count 16 8 1 2 4 31 % 24% 25% 8% 25% 57% 25%



No answer Count 12 7 5 1 0 25 % 18% 22% 38% 13% 0% 20%

Total Count 66 32 13 8 7 126 Results from written consultation by Stakeholder group Producers: Amongst producers the majority voice is “No answers/ I don’t have an opinion” which reflects quite well the overall reactions to the proposal: they cannot really judge without further information. In Asia as with earlier questions most reject the proposal referring back to formal tripartite negotiations and lack of clarity. Respondents in Asian workshops repeated concern that they cannot agree to a requirement based on future promised benchmarks if they do not know what these

31

benchmarks are. In Africa they are additionally concerned about affordability especially if Fairtrade sales are a low percentage of the production, and argue that this might undermine negotiations; however there is certain support as well. As in earlier questions in Latin America producers have a higher support as they consider salaries paid at or nearer living wage. Traders/retailers: Quite a number of traders agree with the proposal, but still the majority disagree for the same reason as above: it is too late, the process should start earlier. There are also serious concerns about the lack of research and understanding on the impact on of this step on the (financial) sustainability of Fairtrade businesses, and without this a proper judgement cannot be made. There is also a reminder of the other tools beyond the standard that Fairtrade needs to activate for change to happen and that might be probably more effective, such as sector industry pressure. NGO/Trade unions: Almost all NGOs and trade unions disagree with the proposal arguing that negotiations should start much earlier and not after 6 years. They miss clarity on the link with Collective Bargaining and also challenge the proposed narrow concept of living wage that only takes into account bare needs and not spendable income for leisure time or holidays. NFO/FLO/FLO-cert: NFOs and FLO is more divided but there is a majority in disagreement for the same reason: it is too late, it is a development requirement so it might never be implemented, and there is no link on how this will be supported. There are proposals to make it a Core requirement in year 3 and not only focusing on processes but on results. It is also proposed that this has a reflection on Fairtrade’s pricing methodology (the aspiration to pay living wage being part of the COSP) and to include it in requirements for traders, so this concept is indeed backed by payments and can be afforded by producers. In conclusion, there was general dissent to this re quirement as it is proposed. stakeholders want to see a proposal that happens sooner, that is mandatory for all, but also that is clear and researched enough so the financial implications can be evaluated.

18. Equivalent benefits for migrant/seasonal/tempor ary workers The current requirement outlining equivalent benefits for migrant and seasonal/temporary workers is auditable at Year 6. Fairtrade suggests changing the timeline to Year 3 so that, in line with the Hired Labour strategy, the position of migrant workers is strengthened.

3.5.23 Local and migrant, seasonal/temporary and permanent workers must receive equivalent benefits and employment conditions for equal work performed. In cases where equivalent benefits, such as a pension scheme or social security, cannot be made available to a set of workers, e.g. migrant workers, these workers must receive the equivalent or an alternative through other means. Your company must specify measurable objectives with regard to this. (Dev Year 3)

Results from public consultation by Stakeholder group Of different types of organisation who contributed to the online consultation, FLO/FLO-cert were the only ones divided, with the grater majority in agreement.

Do you agree with the change of timeline in the requirement proposing equivalent benefits and employment conditions for equal work performed?


Union/ NGO NFO

FLO/ FLO-CERT

All Groups

Yes, I agree. Count 29 17 8 7 3 64 % 44% 53% 62% 88% 43% 51%


32


No answer Count 12 6 4 0 0 22 % 18% 19% 31% 0% 0% 17%


Producers: Most of the producers consulted were in favour of this agreeing that no kind of discrimination was acceptable and that permanent and migrant workers should be treated equally, that this was already the law in some countries e.g. Kenya, with one person stating that it should be a core requirement in year 0. The few who disagreed gave the following reasons; that temporary and permanent workers are already paid the same, and migrant workers are paid above the wages available where they come from and that is why they come and work elsewhere. NGO/Trade unions : This stakeholder group felt that this was a positive movement forwards, but they had their reservations about it being DEV year 3 and not in year 1 and put in the CORE requirements. They felt that migrant workers already had a disadvantage given their precarious work situation and so they needed protection from the start in the workplace. Traders/retailers: Traders and retailers also agreed that this was positive change with the majority in agreement with a couple of comments pushing for it to be sooner than year three. Of the minority who disagreed, one thought that this would create a financial burden on Fairtrade businesses and make them uncompetitive, while another thought that it might not be possible to achieve by year three although they agreed that the process should begin. NFO/FLO/FLO-cert: The NFO’s were in the generally in agreement with the change, but with one difference of opinion on it being year 3 and not year 0, and one voice stating that, although they agreed, ‘given the high priority Fairtrade attributes to the labour conditions of workers a DEV 3 seems to be a very defensive, even weak position – because it is NOT ensured that a plantation will take any action. From a market point of view – where we have to defend the credibility and to proof the added value of Fairtrade we would suggest to ensure a minimal activity by defining the quality of the timeline as CORE 3.’ One person suggested that it should be progressive but start from year 0. Another comment was that it could possibly cause concern for management and full-time workers. A comment from FLO/FLO-CERT was while the rationale behind this requirement was understood it could be further defined that it apply if the temporary/seasonal exceeds a specified percent at any given time. The concern was that it was difficult to expect this to happen if there were seasonal coming for only four weeks of the year, they added that ‘if not better defined then being a development criteria no one will ever bother to fully comply and it becomes an empty claim that Fairtrade makes.’ Disagreements from FLO were made on the grounds that it should be a core requirement, and that impact studies had shown that Fairtrade had made limited progress in overcoming pre-existing social inequalities. Another comment expressed that this could only be theoretical as it would never happen in practice and that the words ‘equivalent benefits’ should be changed to ‘fair benefits’ to be more realistic. In conclusion, although there was majority agreemen t on this change, there was some discussion as to whether it should be moved to a co re requirement instead of development to ensure that companies complied with it. Others pref erred for it to be moved to year 0.

33

19. Grievance procedure timeline

Relationships between workers and management, based on mutual respect, regular dialogue and fairness(a mature system of industrial relations) as suggested by the global HL strategy includes not only a process for collective bargaining and broader dialogue, but procedures for conflict resolution such as grievance procedures. The suggestion is therefore to move the existing requirement on a grievance procedure from the current progress Year 3 to a core Year 0 requirement.

3.5.30 If not already included in a collective bargaining agreement, your company must have a grievance procedure in place which is communicated to workers and ensures that workers fully understand the procedure and are aware that they have the right to be heard and the right to appeal to an independent party.

The grievance procedure must also include a procedure for cases of sexual harassment. Grievances regarding sexual harassment should be designated to specially appointed women or women’s committees, linked to a female senior manager when possible and with direct access to the Chief Executive. The same principles apply in case of sexual harassment of groups other than women. This grievance procedure must be in accordance with national legislation.

Almost all of those consulted in the workshops and questionnaires, across organizations and regions agree to move the grievance to core year 0. Do you agree with the change of the grievance procedure timeline (from year 3 to Core year 0)?


Union/ NGO NFO

FLO/ FLO-CERT

All Groups

Yes, I agree. Count 45 24 8 7 5 89 % 68% 75% 62% 88% 71% 71%



No answer Count 11 5 4 0 0 20 % 17% 16% 31% 0% 0% 16%

Total Count 66 32 13 8 7 126 Results from written consultation by Stakeholder group Producers: It would seem that most producers already have this in place e.g. India and in some countries it is national law e.g. South Africa. While some producers perceived the grievance procedure to be a long and costly exercise needing more time, another opposed this saying that it did not need to be elaborate but could be simple but still effective, and should be in year 0. Some wording changes were proposed. Traders/retailers: This group had no major objections to the change. One view posed that there should be a clause saying that the union should have an active part in the grievance procedures. NFO/FLO/FLO-cert: This group also had no major objections, and comments echoed the above that unions should be active in the grievance procedure process. One comment from FLO suggested that it should be from year 1 as the CBA was not required until then, while a producer commented that the reference to the CBA was not necessary. NGO/Trade union: Comments showed no objection to an operational level grievance procedure controlled by the employer provided that it does not preclude any other measures that may be taken by workers to seek remedy and provided that the workers concerned are clearly informed of this.

34

“Moreover, using such grievance procedures must not be a requirement before other means of seeking remedy can be used. Also there should be guidance provided for these procedures to ensure that they are accessible, predictable (rule based) and that the workers are provided assistance in using them and that they are based on genuine dialogue. Consider guidance based on the eight criteria for effectiveness of operational level non-judicial grievance found in Principle 31 of the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human rights.” Further, another stakeholder warns that the Standard is lacking “a system to hold both employers and FLO and FLO-cert accountable when grievances at certified facilities are not addressed to the satisfaction of the complainants, and where remedies are needed” In conclusion, very few people disagreed with the c hange of timeline. Some suggestions were made to make some changes to the wording: taking ou t the reference to the CBA, adding that the workers representatives should have an active p art in the procedures and changing the wording women’s committee to gender committee.

20. Definition of decent housing

Through feedback from auditors and field staff Fairtrade understands that the current housing requirement does not provide adequate detail to be effectively understood and audited. Therefore details have been added to the guidance in the current requirement according to ILO guidelines to clarify what is meant by “decent housing”. The requirement itself is essentially unchanged, but only better defined. Please note that this only applies if the employer provides housing to workers, it is not an obligation to offer housing.

3.5.31 If your company provides housing for permanent, temporary or former workers, it must be such as to ensure structural safety and reasonable levels of decency, privacy, security and hygiene, and includes regular upkeep, improvement and modernisation of housing and related communal facilities. If sanitary facilities are shared, a reasonable number of toilets and showers per number of users, and according to regional practice, must be available. The cost for housing must be according to local averages. If your company provides housing, you must compensate workers who do not receive housing benefits otherwise. Guidance: The requirement and guidance are based on international labour standards. National or state regulation must be complied with in all cases. Guiding principles for adequate and decent housing to provide a suitable living environment for workers should ensure: For family housing and dormitories

• adequate natural light during the daytime and access to adequate artificial light • adequate ventilation to ensure sufficient movement of air in all conditions of weather

and climate • adequate supply of safe potable water • adequate sanitary facilities • adequate drainage • fire safety measures, including installing and maintaining fire equipment • safe electrical installations For dormitories: • a separate bed for each worker • adequate headroom, providing full and free movement • the minimum inside dimensions of a sleeping space should be at least 198 centimetres

by 80 centimetres • beds should not be arranged in tiers of more than two • bedding and bed frame materials should be designed to deter vermin • heating where appropriate

35

• adequate furniture for each worker to secure his or her belongings • separate accommodation of the sexes

In order to meet workers’ privacy needs, it is recommended that you as management agree with the workers on how their privacy requirements can be realised. For former workers, it is also recommended that your company provide retirement housing on or off the farm. For further details on housing, please see the ILO Helpdesk Factsheet No. 6, 2009 on workers housing.

As the graph shows, there was a strong agreement from workers to the added definition of decent housing in the guidance, with a number of workers wanting even more inclusions in the definition.

Worker responses from questionnaires and supported by workshop feedback Workers: Workers comments towards the housing definitions generally focussed on requesting additional guidelines to define what is decent. These included electricity, ceilings, security, more safety elements, outside places for children to play in, and guidance on the measurements of houses and the number of people living in them, because all the listed requirements could be complied with and yet overcrowding could be an issue. In fact, overcrowding was a major focus for many, with many complaints raised about living with families in just one room, and the lack of hygiene and the spreading of sickness caused by overcrowding. One person stated that bunk beds were not acceptable, as people should not be sleeping on top of each other, and sixteen people in one room was too many. One worker simply stated that if workers have a nice home they will be happy and work better. A question about the people who lived off the farm and the poor conditions that they lived in and how this is addressed was raised by one worker.

Do you agree with adding the definition of decent housing in guidance? Producer Trader/


FLO/ FLO-CERT

All Groups

Yes, I agree. Count 22 22 8 6 5 63 % 33% 69% 62% 75% 71% 50%


36


No answer Count 14 7 5 1 0 27 % 21% 22% 38% 13% 0% 21%

Total Count 66 32 13 8 7 126 Results from written consultation by Stakeholder group Producers: Producers showed a very slight majority in favour of the housing definitions. Many agreed that this was a basic requirement and that adding the definition would lead to the fulfilment of better standards of housing. Some producers agreed to this because they already had to fulfil similar plantation requirements in their region e.g. Africa, while others disagreed for the same reason, in Asia. This would therefore imply that the new Fairtrade definitions were the same or similar to those already in areas in Africa but more stringent than those in Asia. Others felt that the guidance should not be written ‘across the board’ but should be regional and only in line with or above local norms. There where various reason for disagreeing with the housing definitions, including that it would be too costly. One large producer in Africa expressed concern over the word adequate and who would be defining it as it is very subjective. They also suggested that there could be more flexibility for the Premium once the Premium committee has reached a level of maturity, and already funded projects that would benefit the community, and that it could be used towards improving the housing e.g. to fund electricity which would obviously hugely benefit the local community. Another of the big producers in the same region stated that the employer’s obligation is to the employee and not to his/her family. They stated that while the housing definitions could be met for the employee alone, the employer should not be penalised if an employee decides to house his/her extended family in line with cultural norms. Farms providing housing should not be penalized as the alternative for workers is slum housing. Again it was requested that where workers were housed on the farm a percentage of the Premium be allowed to maintain/upgrade the housing. They finished by pointing out that it would be better to work out a way to enable workers to own their own decent houses. Traders/retailers: Although mainly in agreement, this group feared that the costs involved with compliance would force the prices up and Fairtrade producers would not have a competitive market. One person asked that it should be stated that workers should be free to choose if they wanted to live in the workers housing or not. More guidance was requested when a company provides “free” housing or provides housing that it charges rent for and clarity about giving retirement homes for former employees i.e. if you work for a company and then leave aged thirty are they still obliged to give you a house when you are seventy? Clarity was also requested on when housing should be provided i.e. when housing is not provided and migrant workers live in shockingly poor conditions because of a low minimum wage and discrimination. One stakeholder agreed reluctantly, believing that fair trade as a movement was potentially designed to out compete plantations, forcing them into insolvency so the land is returned to the people. “When your housing is provided, you are bound to your employment and many people live in fear of being thrown out of their houses. There should be more guidance included to protect the worker.” NGO/trade unions: This stakeholder group agreed unanimously but did not make any comments. NFO/FLO/FLO-cert : There was general agreement from this group on the definitions. It was noted that the clause that reads ‘If your company provides housing, you must compensate workers who do not receive housing benefits otherwise" must be better defined. Further, the question was raised that if supervisors and management only are housed on site would they be considered workers and therefore all workers need to be compensated with housing. Additional clarification was also requested for the word adequate, the use of Premium for housing improvements, and the clause regarding retirement homes.

37

One contributor disagreed with the new guidance on the grounds that the proposed description of “adequate and decent housing” for dormitories is a reputational risk – it describes a situation which cannot be considered decent housing in the context of Fairtrade. Either it must be stated that the dormitories are only allowed for seasonal workers working a maximum of 6 months on the farm. Or, if permanent workers are housed in dormitories , that it should not occur for more than three years after initial certification. In conclusion, although most people agreed to the d efinitions on housing being included as a basic right, and that they added a lot of clarity, there were a lot of suggestions on ways to improve them. Questions were opened up including ho w to deal with overcrowding and cultural norms and the possibility to use Premium t o improve housing for workers. Both clearer definitions and more guidance were ask ed for.

21. Share audit results with workers This new requirement was added to be in line with the HL strategy for workers to be more actively involved in the audit process. 1.1.2 Your company must share audit results with workers following each audit in a way that workers, through their representatives, understand these results. Workers: This question was not one of the key topics discussed in workshops with workers. However, a number of workers responded to this question in the workers questionnaires. All of those who did were in favour of adding this new requirement. Most of the reasons given were around transparency. Workers want to know what is happening on their farms and want to contribute, and also to assist to rectify non-compliances or things that might not be going well. Comments also show that workers feel knowing the audit results might increase commitment of workers to Fairtrade. “.. It will help us understand where we are and enable correction of shortcomings.”

Do you agree that companies must share audit results with workers? Producer Trader/


FLO/ FLO-CERT

All Groups

Yes, I agree. Count 39 25 8 8 6 86 % 59% 78% 62% 100% 86% 68%



No answer Count 15 6 5 0 0 26 % 23% 19% 38% 0% 0% 21%

Total Count 66 32 13 8 7 126 Results from written consultation by Stakeholder group General feedback from all other stakeholder groups: Analysis of the responses to the public consultation document shows a high rate of approval of adding this new requirement. Comments in favour of the proposal show that on some farms audit results are already shared with workers or their representatives and the experience with this has been positive. It is considered that this will lead to a greater involvement of workers. One respondent wrote that the certification process belongs to everyone, that sharing the audit results was very enriching and that the workers must be part of the whole process and can propose solutions to non-conformities. It is also considered as positive that

38

though sharing audit results with workers they gain more knowledge of Fairtrade which leads to greater empowerment. It should be noted that also among the comments in favour of the proposal it was pointed out that some audit results may contain confidential information which should not be shared with all workers (such as wage levels of individuals). The only significant few seen to disagree with sharing the audit results with workers were the producers who perceived that some of the audit results may be confidential or may jeopardize a workplace if released to workers. One respondent also holds that “the presence of the union officials in opening and closing meetings is enough.” In conclusion, this requirement is seen as a positi ve step and is largely supported by both workers and all the other stakeholder groups.

22. Fairtrade International staff to interact with workers This new requirement was introduced to support capacity building by Fairtrade field staff.

1.1.3 Your company must allow Fairtrade International representatives to interact with workers to discuss matters related to Fairtrade as needed.

Workers: There was a strong majority of workers in agreement with being able to meet with Fairtrade International representatives. Reasons for the agreement included that workers would be well informed about Fairtrade and that the representatives would have knowledge about workers interests and demands. Idea generation and sharing would be stronger and any complaints could be forwarded to the representatives. Workers would be able to get more information on the sale of the products and the prices. Information sharing would also allow workers to know what was being done for them by Fairtrade and would in addition provide more information for the auditors.

Results from written consultation by Stakeholder group General feedback from all other stakeholder groups: A strong majority of stakeholders in general agreed with this, with most people commenting that it would bring a greater understanding of Fairtrade to the workers, and it would lead to capacity building, demonstrate a greater level of transparency and would create a positive attitude amongst the workers. There was a need to ensure that visits would be prearranged to avoid disruption to the producers and while some insisted that management would be present others wanted local LO representatives

Do you agree that Fairtrade International representatives to must be allowed to interact with workers to discuss matters related to Fairtrade as needed?


Union/ NGO NFO

FLO/ FLO-CERT

All Groups

Yes, I agree. Count 43 23 7 8 6 87 % 65% 72% 54% 100% 86% 69%



No answer Count 13 8 6 0 0 27 % 20% 25% 46% 0% 0% 21%

Total Count 66 32 13 8 7 126

39

present who spoke the language and knew the area and the issues and the Joint Body representatives to ensure that their mandate was not undermined. While there was a request to also include NFOs and PNs from the NFOs, there was some concern about the misuse of this ‘right’ and somehow being able to guarantee that the rationale to support capacity building was upheld The comments in disagreement with this proposed requirement were that the interaction would have to be managed in a manner that did not interfere with work programmes and also that Fairtrade International representatives must be neutral to avoid causing problems in the workplace which has been included in the guidance. In conclusion, there is strong approval to include this requirement in the revised standard.

23. Legitimate right to land use and land tenure This new requirement has been included in alignment with ILO convention 169 on Indigenous and Tribal peoples and benchmarked with IMO Fair for Life and Rainforest Alliance.

1.1.8 Your company must have legal and legitimate right to land use and land tenure and respect the rights of local and indigenous peoples. Disputes on land must be resolved responsibly and transparently before certification can be granted.

There was a strong majority in agreement with this new requirement across different types of organization and regions. Do you agree companies must have legal and legitimate right to land use and land tenure?


Union/ NGO NFO

FLO/ FLO-CERT

All Groups

Yes, I agree. Count 38 20 7 8 7 80 % 58% 63% 54% 100% 100% 63%



No answer Count 16 8 5 0 0 29 % 24% 25% 38% 0% 0% 23%

Total Count 66 32 13 8 7 126 Results from written consultation by Stakeholder group General feedback from all stakeholder groups: It was suggested by parties from both NFO and NGO/trade unions that because referring to the ILO Convention is insufficient, there must be a reference to the “Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure” as defined by the CFS-FAO in May 2012. Although voluntary, this is the most sophisticated and most widely accepted (also among CSOs) guideline regarding the protection of locally existing property rights over natural resources up to date, including crucial elements such as FPIC. Thus, 1.1.8 must ask for “full alignment with the FAO Voluntary Guidelines”. The requirement raised some concern with African producers where there were many claims to land, and disputes. Fairtrade was advised that this is not an area that it should get involved in. If the company has legitimate right then this should be acceptable and disputes should not affect the certification. If disputes are evident then there should be proof of an on-going resolution process.

40

Other producers thought that this might be difficult to audit and that if there were issues then the auditors would need to be very well informed. A question that was posed by one of the traders was ‘how far back do we take this?’ as they considered that ‘legitimate right to land’ was almost impossible to obtain. In conclusion, there was very strong support in fav our of this requirement, with some reservation about the fact that disputes, and land claims can go on for a long time and this should not affect the certification, if proof can b e shown that the resolution process is on-going.

24. Needs assessment of migrant workers’ home commu nity The global HL strategy mentions that standard revisions and/or capacity building activities resulting from the strategic review should benefit seasonal, temporary and migrant workers. Several requirements have been proposed in the draft Standard to support this, which have in general met with positive results in the consultation. However, the following requirement that was proposed in the draft HL Standard did meet with opposition. 2.1.16 Your company must carry out a needs assessment of the home community from which most migrant workers come. This must be shared with the Fairtrade Premium Committee so that the Committee can consider and discuss the possibility of developing Fairtrade Premium projects in migrant worker home communities. Guidance: The needs assessment can be done by discussing with relevant workers on the premises.

Workers: Workers were in strong agreement with this proposed requirement as many people thought that the migrant workers should get the same benefits as they worked just as hard as permanent workers and for the same company. However, very few workers actually passed comment on this and the actual practicalities of how to do this were not addressed in the comments. Responses from the consultations show that overall views are equally distributed between the organisations consulted. Trade unions and NFO’s are in strong favour of this while the producer organisations show that a small majority disagrees with carrying out needs assessments from migrants’ home communities. Regionally, Africa and Asia are in agreement while a small majority disagree in Latin America. Do you agree that the company must carry out a needs assessment of the home community from which most migrant workers come?


Union/ NGO NFO

FLO/ FLO-CERT

All Groups

Yes, I agree. Count 19 9 5 6 3 42 % 29% 28% 38% 75% 43% 33%



No answer Count 15 9 7 1 0 32 % 23% 28% 54% 13% 0% 25%

Total Count 66 32 13 8 7 126

41

Results from written consultation by Stakeholder group Producers: The majority of producers disagreed on this. Those in agreement thought that this would be fair and helpful to the migrant workers, but despite this it was widely held that an assessment would be extremely hard and costly to carry out. A verbal assessment would not be considered adequate, and follow up of any projects would be difficult. It was considered reasonable to carry this out if there were significant numbers of migrant workers from a specific place; however it was thought that it might cause conflicts if there were many migrants from different places each with their needs and that the resources would not be enough. One producer noted that the first step should be to assess the direct needs of the migrant worker and their family and resolving them before moving the Premium to their place of origin. Traders and retailers : This group had equally opposing views, with those who commented expressing that this could be very costly and should be the responsibility of either the Premium Committee or the Liaison Officers. NGO/trade unions and NFOs agreed on this, stating that it was basic information that was needed for Premium decisions, however some points were raised questioning the complications of carrying this out when workers come from far and wide, that it could cause xenophobia, that it would be costly and if the 30% of the Premium was allowed then the cash could simply be sent home. It was suggested that the requirement would be strengthened if it included the involvement of the Premium Committee in the needs assessment, such as, ‘your company must carry out a needs assessment together with the Premium committee...’ FLO/FLO-cert: Comments from FLO were both for and against the inclusion of the needs assessments of migrants’ home communities. Despite the written guidance included with the proposed requirement, the difficulties of carrying this out were again raised as well as concern over the cost and the accuracy of the work done. It was also pointed out that while on the one hand management are asked not to interfere in the Premium Committee voting, they are now asked to carry out a needs assessment and share it with the Premium Committee. Suggestions were made that;

a) the Premium Committee commission a cost effective needs assessment in an area which is home to a large majority of the migrant workers,

b) when training is provided on Premium use, it is explained clearly that even though the migrants homes are far, they are living within the farm community and have need for the school and health facilities in the vicinity and therefore they will also benefit from these while they are at work.

c) this should be a Fairtrade Premium Committee requirement only if there is significant migrant workforce that is not only seasonal.

In conclusion, despite a slight majority in favour of this requirement, it was regarded as complicated and costly. People from all the differe nt types of organisations suggested that it should be the responsibility of the Premium Committ ee or Liaison Officer and not of the company.

25. The Premium committee must administer the Premi um funds responsibly This proposed requirement is included to ensure the responsible use of the Premium.

2.1.19 The Premium committee must administer the Premium funds responsibly, therefore a risk assessment must be undertaken for all projects and investments

42

There was an extensive strong majority in agreement for this requirement, with some useful comments for consideration.

Do you agree that the Premium committee must administer the Premium funds responsibly?


Union/ NGO NFO

FLO/ FLO-CERT

All Groups

Yes, I agree. Count 40 20 4 7 4 75 % 61% 63% 31% 88% 57% 60%



No answer Count 16 7 7 0 0 30 % 24% 22% 54% 0% 0% 24%

Total Count 66 32 13 8 7 126 Results from written consultation by Stakeholder group Workers: All workers interviewed agreed 100% with this new requirement. They believed that this was necessary to keep the JB on the right track, risk assessments would ensure that the Premium money is used wisely, and not unnecessarily misspent and would address the issue of Premium money being used for building on the farm, and what happens when the farmer sells the farm. Producers: Producers in favour thought that this would ensure that the investment of money from the Premium is safe and therefore actually comes to meeting basic needs, and guarantees the proper use of the Premium. Several producers thought that there should be more details (a guidance document) on what the assessment should contain e.g. a cost/benefit analysis, examples of key risky projects etc. They considered that the assessments would be difficult for the Premium committees to carry out especially in the first year, and that they would need management support and direction in order to build their capacity. An alternative would be to change it to year three. Traders/retailers: One trader who agreed believed that this would help to ensure the Premiums is used for projects that have the best chance of succeeding, another gave a cautious warning to be careful that the standard should not increase the administrative load, while another simply asked who was going to do the risk assessments. Disagreements with carrying out risk assessments included that it would add to the bureaucracy, and that it would only be appropriate for larger Premium funded projects and investments. They stressed that workers on the Premium committees and the FTO’s already had their plates full. There was concern that the employees are not trained and educated enough to carry out a risk assessment and one trader stated that they disagreed unless FLO provided the capacity building. NGO/Trade unions: In general this group agreed overall but comments were made that this should only be for large projects and would increase the workloads of workers. NFO/FLO/FLO-cert: FLO and the NFO’s also agreed overall, but had a number of observations to make: Adding a risk assessment for EACH project or investment was considered to be ‘demanding’ and ‘exaggerated’ and sometimes a project might be very small or an overall Premium budget might include dozens of different projects. It was recommended that it should be more a single risk assessment of all the projects, or a risk assessment of the main projects, so that it wasn’t understood to mean that every little training or action needs its own individual lengthy risk assessment report. Two organisations remarked that taking out the IAC and letting the Premium committee carry out the risk assessment did not make sense and might open up the doors to fraud being undetected and at

43

the same time protected by a well written risk assessment. An additional remark was that it should only be for loans for the company and that due to the risk involved in these loans it was requested that they should not be made without the prior consent of FLO to ensure adequate security. In conclusion, while stakeholders were generally po sitive toward the intention of this requirement, amendments were suggested to ensure th at it does not add too much bureaucracy and administration costs. There should also be a guidance document written for how to carry out appropriate risk assessments, and support should be given to the Premium committee to enable them to carry this out in year one, or it should be a later core requirement.

26. Equity in the workplace

The new requirement below was adapted from the South African Black Economic Empowerment (BEE) Score card was proposed as a DEV year 6 requirement:

2.2.6 Your company must undertake activities to achieve equity in the workplace. This includes specifically addressing the employment and promotion of people from disadvantaged and minority groups as well as the promotion of workers.

Do you agree that company must undertake activities to achieve equity in the workplace?


Union/ NGO NFO

FLO/ FLO-CERT

All Groups

Yes, I agree. Count 25 15 5 7 5 57 % 38% 47% 38% 88% 71% 45%



No answer Count 18 8 8 0 0 34 % 27% 25% 62% 0% 0% 27%

Total Count 66 32 13 8 7 126 Results from written consultation by Stakeholder group Workers: Workers overwhelmingly and globally agreed to this because they felt that there was still a lot of unhappiness in the world and that it was possible to treat everyone equally in the workplace. While all agreed to the point of having equity in the workplace and many did not have an opinion because they felt that this did not concern them as the equity was already there and there were no disadvantaged or minority groups, others had comments to make especially on the side of ‘specifically addressing the employment and promotion of people from disadvantaged and minority groups’. Producers: One producer said that minority groups, if they exist in a company setting, should be empowered as much as possible. It was however considered difficult to prove and there should be more clarification on disadvantaged and minority. Several stated that they felt that promotions should be based on merit and competence, that a job should not be given to someone who is not qualified just because they are disadvantaged or part of a minority and that when this has been done there have always been problems and poor results. Traders/retailers: This group generally agreed with one comment expressing that year six was too long, while another thought employment and promotion should be merit based. NGO/Trade unions all agreed and had no additional comments to make.

44

NFO/FLO/FLO-cert: This selection of stakeholders also agreed to the requirement but again raised issues with the second part. It was described as sounding like positive discrimination and should be rephrased. Suggestions were to add the wording ‘where applicable’ or ‘where skill-sets, performance is proven’ which would address the concerns that were raised by some of the producers. The need to address the issue of illiteracy was also raised as vulnerable groups of workers often lacked education, language skills and self-confidence. A suggestion that complimented this was to add the requirement demanding professional training for disadvantaged or minority groups in order to qualify them to take up more advanced positions. In conclusion, amended wording was strongly suggest ed so that it does not sound like positive discrimination, and a suggestion that an a dditional requirement should be added for education/professional training to be provided for disadvantaged or minority groups in order to qualify them to take up more advanced positions.

27. All workers must have the right to be elected f or the workers' committee and/or the Fairtrade Premium Committee

This requirement originally comes from the former certification policy for migrant workers in Dominican Republic. It is considered important as part of global requirement to strengthen position and rights of migrant workers.

3.1.9 All workers, regardless of nationality or residency status, including temporary, seasonal and migrant workers, must have the right to be elected for the workers' committee and/or the Fairtrade Premium Committee, or if necessary be represented by a permanent worker.

The majority of people who answered this agreed to the inclusion of the new requirements on the grounds that there should be equality for all workers, and that in most places it seems this is happening already. Do you agree that all workers, regardless of nationality or residency status...must have the right to be elected for the workers' committee and/or the Fairtrade Premium Committee?


Union/ NGO NFO

FLO/ FLO-CERT

All Groups

Yes, I agree. Count 30 21 4 8 6 69 % 45% 66% 31% 100% 86% 55%



No answer Count 17 8 8 0 0 33 % 26% 25% 62% 0% 0% 26%

Total Count 66 32 13 8 7 126 Results from written consultation by Stakeholder group Quite a few comments were made that it should be a permanent worker who represented the temporary, seasonal and migrant workers so that there is continuity and also to ensure that they are represented and that elections do not take place in the off peak season when there are no temporary workers. One person disagreed on the grounds that there would be no accountability or continuity; however this could be addressed were there a permanent worker who was the representative of the temporary/seasonal/migrant workers.

45

In conclusion, the new requirement was accepted by the majority with few comments in disagreement.

28. Cost for migrant workers paid by company This requirement was included to strengthen the support of migrant workers as suggested by the global HL strategy. 3.5.28 If your company recruits workers from other regions or countries, you must pay any recruitment or agency and visa fees incurred. You must also pay travel costs for these workers to and from their home country or region at the onset and end of their work period if the work period is less than one year. Workers: Almost 100% of workers agreed to this. Workers agreed that it was the company’s responsibility as the farm needed the workers and they had to come from far away.

Do you agree that costs for migrant workers paid by company


Union/ NGO NFO

FLO/ FLO-CERT

All Groups

Yes, I agree. Count 24 12 6 4 6 52 % 36% 38% 46% 50% 86% 41%



No answer Count 19 8 7 2 0 36 % 29% 25% 54% 25% 0% 29%

Total Count 66 32 13 8 7 126 Results from written consultation by Stakeholder group Overall the majority voted in favour of this requirement. When analysed by organisation, there was a clear majority in producers, traders, Unions/NGO’s and FLO/NFO, however when divided into regions there was a clear disagreement from Latin America, while both Africa and Asia agreed. Do you agree that costs for migrant workers paid by company


All Regions

Yes, I agree. Count 11 11 2 24 % 41% 55% 11% 36%



No answer Count 6 5 8 19 % 22% 25% 42% 29%

Total Count 27 20 19 66 Results from written consultation by Stakeholder group Producers: Most of the producers were in agreement, but again the issue of how to define what a migrant worker was needed better definition i.e. some people may have already moved into the area to settle and then started to look for work. It was suggested that this only apply to workers coming from different countries, or to use the word ‘recruit’ i.e. if the company were to go pro-actively to a

46

specific area to recruit then this would apply but not if the workers came to the farm looking for employment. Traders/retailers: Most of the traders agreed, but those who did not thought that it would considerably increase the cost base for many businesses, creating an uneven playing field and interrupting the market forces of labour. It was not accepted for economic migrants who come to request work, but only for those recruited from another country. NGO/Trade unions: T his groups was in favour and did not provide any comments. NFO/FLO/FLO-cert: FLO and the NFO’s again agreed for the most part, but with concern that although it seemed beneficial it might exclude workers from being recruited. Once again it was reiterated that it should be clearer that this applied only in cases of recruitment from another region. In conclusion, an overall agreement in favour of th is requirement, aside from Latin America, where the majority did not accept it. There was a s trong suggestion to make this only applicable to workers who were actively recruited f rom another region or country.

29. Legal recruitment of migrant workers

Stemming from the HL strategy to support migrant/seasonal and temporary workers, this requirement stipulates that all recruitment must be legal.

3.5.29 If your company employs permanent or seasonal/temporary migrant workers, you must ensure that they have been recruited legally.

All workers must recruited legally Producer Trader/ Retailer

Union/ NGO NFO

FLO/ FLO-CERT

All Groups

Yes, I agree. Count 37 21 6 7 6 77 % 56% 66% 46% 88% 86% 61%



No answer Count 17 8 6 0 0 31 % 26% 25% 46% 0% 0% 25%

Total Count 66 32 13 8 7 126 Results from written consultation by Stakeholder group The majority of respondents supported this new requirement pointing out that it is fair and would benefit migrant and seasonal workers. Several comments in opposition suggested that this requirement should extend to all workers and not be limited to migrant and seasonal workers only. Another pointed out that it is difficult to control. In conclusion, there was overall support for this r equirement.

30. Valid documents for migrant workers – applicabl e to Dominican Republic only This requirement originates from compliance criteria and policy on migrant workers in Dominican Republic and is specifically to take into account the situation of migrant workers in DR, especially regarding proper documentation.

47

(Applicable for the Dominican Republic only)

3.1.10 To guarantee non-discrimination and equal treatment to all workers, your company must guarantee that migrant workers have a valid passport and visa allowing them to legally work, or an official receipt proving that the documentation process is in progress.

Do you agree guarantee that migrant workers have valid documents? (Dominican Republic only)


Union/ NGO NFO

FLO/ FLO-CERT

All Groups

Yes, I agree. Count 13 10 5 7 2 37 % 20% 31% 38% 88% 29% 29%



No answer Count 38 13 6 0 3 60 % 58% 41% 46% 0% 43% 48%

Total Count 66 32 13 8 7 126 Results from written consultation by Stakeholder group The large majority who responded to this question were in agreement, that it was important to ensure that this was happening. Several respondents suggested that it be included in all countries and not just the Dominican Republic. One comment made was that passports can be costly i.e. equivalent to one year’s salary and not all Haitians wanted a passport and so a working visa should suffice. Producers from Latin America in disagreement suggested that these costs should be covered by the workers and the Premium committee. A response from one trader was that so many workers do not have these documents and it would force suppliers to reject non documented migrant workers and only use documented workers thus shutting out the neediest migrants and was therefore counterintuitive. In conclusion the majority felt this should be adop ted, but to consider taking out the passport as a requirement and just leaving the working visa as a requirement. Deleted requirements In the process of revision, a number of requirements were identified to be deleted primarily because they are not achieving the intended impact of the Standard or were considered redundant. It is therefore proposed to delete the following requirements:

31. Requirement 1.1.1.3 The intention to delete this requirement was because the intended impact cannot be demonstrated.

1.1.1.3 The employer must demonstrate that any Fairtrade revenues will promote the social and economic development of the workers.

The majority of respondents from the different stakeholder groups agreed to delete this requirement on the grounds that it was repetitive and covered elsewhere and was difficult to prove. The largest group to disagree was from the trader/retailers who preferred to have the company responsible for demonstrating how the Fairtrade revenue/premium benefited the workers. A detailed suggestion from one of the NFO respondents was that the wording should be changed to ‘The company develops an annual Development plan for investments to improve the situation of the workers in different field like decent housing; OH&S; medical assistance; access to education; wage increase towards living wage levels. This plan and the report on achieved projects are shared with the workers committee.’

48

Do you agree with the deletion of requirement 1.1.1.3? Producer Trader/


FLO/ FLO-CERT

All Groups

Yes, I agree. Count 38 12 3 6 5 64 % 58% 38% 23% 75% 71% 51%



No answer Count 19 9 6 0 0 34 % 29% 28% 46% 0% 0% 27%

Total Count 66 32 13 8 7 126 Results from written consultation by Stakeholder group In conclusion, the majority feel that this is adequ ately covered elsewhere and can be deleted.

32. Requirement 1.1.1.7 The deletion of this is based on feedback received during the New Standards Framework consultation.

The company has access to adequate administration and communication equipment and to all necessary logistical systems? The large majority agreed to the deletion of this requirement on the grounds that it already had to be in place for any company and therefore the rationale for its deletion was accepted. The few who disagreed did so with precautionary comments to ensure that the infrastructure was in place.



FLO/ FLO-CERT

All Groups

Yes, I agree. Count 39 18 5 8 6 76 % 59% 56% 38% 100% 86% 60%



No answer Count 19 10 7 0 0 36 % 29% 31% 54% 0% 0% 29%

Total Count 66 32 13 8 7 126 Results from written consultation by Stakeholder group In conclusion, the majority was in favour of the de letion of this requirement.

33. Requirement 1.1.2.4

49

The rationale to delete this requirement is that quality control should already part of an established company, and that it does not directly contribute to the Fairtrade mission.

An effective and appropriate quality management system is in place within a year of certification?

The majority of the stakeholder respondents agreed to delete this because quality is already an integral part of any Fairtrade certified company, and that this requirement does not contribute to the Fairtrade mission. A few, mainly traders and retailers, disagreed because they saw a need to ensure that quality management was a requirement to ensure that quality Fairtrade products were delivered to customers. The questions was raised that without making this a requirement could Fairtrade ensure that all farms really had these systems in place?



FLO/ FLO-CERT

All Groups

Yes, I agree. Count 38 14 4 8 5 69 % 58% 44% 31% 100% 71% 55%



No answer Count 19 9 6 0 0 34 % 29% 28% 46% 0% 0% 27%

Total Count 66 32 13 8 7 126 Results from written consultation by Stakeholder group In conclusion, the majority agreed that this requir ement is deleted in agreement with the rational that quality control should already part o f an established company, and that it does not directly contribute to the Fairtrade mission..

34. Requirement 2.2.2

Within two years of certification, the Joint Body prepares the Premium work plan by applying the following instruments: consultation, budgeting, rules for project selection, planning, monitoring and evaluation? The justification to delete this requirement is that it is included in the guidance on project planning, originally from explanatory document.

Do you agree with the deletion of requirement 2.2.2? Producer Trader/


FLO/ FLO-CERT

All Groups

Yes, I agree. Count 40 18 2 5 4 69 % 61% 56% 15% 63% 57% 55%



No answer Count 19 9 6 0 0 34 % 29% 28% 46% 0% 0% 27%

50

Total Count 66 32 13 8 7 126 Results from written consultation by Stakeholder group The majority of those who responded agreed to the deletion on the basis that it was rational, however there was some important concern raised about the consequences of deleting it. One comment was that since the project management capacity of Premium Committees has been identified as a critical issue in some studies it make sense to keep this requirement so that Joint Bodies have some sort of ‘binding guidance’. Another comment was that this requirement stimulated the education and empowerment of the workers and that it was important that the guidance was within the development criteria. A point was also raised that the guidance document was often not read by Premium Committees as it was not translated into their languages. In conclusion, the major consensus was that the req uirement should be deleted but there was some significant concern that it was an important r equirement that stimulated the education and empowerment of the Premium Committee and that t hey needed a ‘binding guidance’.

35. Requirement 2.1.15? The rationale to delete this requirement is that the internal audit committee is not required – if records are available, the books can be checked – see new 2.1.13.

The certification body, Joint Body members and, if it exists, the internal audit committee have the right to check the relevant books of the Fairtrade Premium account.

The greater part of respondents to this question agreed with the deletion however there were some producers, trader/retailers, NFO’s and trade unions who all expressed their unease about deleting this and that there ‘must be an elected committee that checks the correct administration of funds and projects by the Premium committee…and it should become a requirement Core 3.’ It was felt that the ‘ICS is better placed than Risk Assessment to have impact’. Additional comments were that the ‘system of internal audit is important to ensure continuous checks and continuous improvement’ and ‘internal audits are required and are beneficial – they are cheaper than external audits and are vitally important’

Do you agree with the deletion of requirement 2.1.15? Producer Trader/


FLO/ FLO-CERT

All Groups

Yes, I agree. Count 40 14 4 4 2 64 % 61% 44% 31% 50% 29% 51%



No answer Count 18 9 7 0 0 34 % 27% 28% 54% 0% 0% 27%

Total Count 66 32 13 8 7 126 Results from written consultation by Stakeholder group In conclusion, the greater part of those who respon ded agreed to the deletion of the requirement for the internal audit committee howeve r some reservations were given owing to benefits that the continuous checks and balance the IAC provides in monitoring the Premium.

36. Requirement 1.1.2.5

51

This requirement is proposed to be deleted as training requirements are reflected throughout the Standard. Further, ensuring labour law requirements and HR management is under the responsibility of the company and beyond Fairtrade scope.

The company has an appropriate human resources management system that is charged with implementing good industrial relations, training programmes and the development of its appropriate human resources management system that is charged with implementing good industrial relations, training programmes and the development of its employees?



FLO/ FLO-CERT

All Groups

Yes, I agree. Count 39 15 2 5 4 65 % 59% 47% 15% 63% 57% 52%



No answer Count 19 9 6 0 0 34 % 29% 28% 46% 0% 0% 27%

Total Count 66 32 13 8 7 126 Results from written consultation by Stakeholder group The majority of respondents agreed to delete this requirement, although there were a good number of respondents who did not agree. Comments were mostly made by those who felt that HR was a key player for the success of Fairtrade, and that ‘much of what is contained in the standards (e.g. grievance procedures) require Human Resources systems’ and ‘Fairtrade does not need to specify how these are provided, but a requirement that systems are in place is probably useful.’ In conclusion, the majority agreed to delete the re quirement for an appropriate HR management system, but there was a noteworthy amoun t of respondents who saw that HR was integral to Fairtrade, and some kind of requirement needed to be in place. Additional comments on draft Standard Comments ranged from very general on the presentation of the Standard to more detailed issues. A summary of these comments are presented here, by category type.

Presentation In terms of the presentation, only one of the large African producers had much to say. They considered them to be written for ease of the auditors and therefore not taking into account the diversities of companies in the system. They referred to the terminology used as ‘antiquated and anti-commercial/aggressive’, and thought that if published, as is, they would cause negative PR/marketing. In addition they felt that they should have been consulted earlier and involved in the HL strategy, and been able to help formulate and construct the change rather than now holding a negative attitude towards many of the suggestions. Finally they felt that the standards should reflect how Fairtrade is: forward thinking, different and new.

Plantation size Several comments were made from various stakeholder groups on the sizes of plantation certified by Fairtrade and that some considerations should be taken.

52

It was suggested that the Standard have a modular structure with definitions for different plantation sizes depending on the number of workers e.g.: 10-50 workers; 50-200 workers; 200< workers, or at least into small, medium and large farms/multi estates; lowering the bar a bit for small companies and raising it for large companies. Possible approaches could be to:

• reduce/increase the required SCORE for compliance in key chapters. • shorten or extend the applicable year of compliance or • shorten or extend the qualification core/dev.

A strong request was made to not allow Permission to Trade for medium and large companies as, frequently, large plantations join the system in response to supply chain demand and not because they share Fairtrade’s vision and there must, therefore, be compliance right from the start. One trader commented that the size of land should be a consideration in the HL standards and that multinationals should be prevented from joining Fairtrade in case it leads to putting small farmers in a disadvantaged position. One of the NGOs wanted it noted that although the changes proposed, in general, strengthen labour standards there is still an issue of fair trade expanding into larger scale agriculture/plantations which needs to be addressed. Further expansion of the model was not supported by them unless:

• there is the possibility of calling it something besides fair trade to clarify the market, • unless there is an evaluation in place of how small producers are affected by certifying

plantations and, • unless there are additional requirements included in hired labour standards to ensure food

sovereignty of workers, for example, access to a plot of land for growing food.

ILO The use of ILO as a base came up several times: it was suggested that the new standard includes references to and guidance on implementation of ILO Convention 184 on safety and health in agriculture and the (new) ILO Code of practice on safety and health in agriculture. Another concern by two respondents was that they could not find anything on sexual harassment, that there should be zero tolerance on this point, and referred again to the new ILO C 184 that covered this area with a sample policy.

Grievance FLO was urged to include directly in Fairtrade’s Standard for HL a more robust set of requirements that will better enable a fair grievance process. It was suggested that the standard contain a focus on resolving problems between workers and their employers and providing remedies for violations. For any ethical certification or labelling initiatives to work effectively, they must acknowledge that fundamental conflicts of interest exist between employers and workers in most workplaces and Fairtrade must be able to balance the interests of employers and workers, and not envision a primary duty to the supplier company (‘producer’) over the workers in the supply chain. Score

There were few comments on SCORE, but they were very detailed in their expressions. The main issues raised were: The average score must not allow core chapters to be passed with an average of less than three. An average of less than three must lead to major non-compliance in the chapters of Premium Management, Freedom of Association and Conditions of Employment and OH&S. It is requested that the average score should be calculated for each subchapter of the Standard and summarised in an overview for each PO. This overview should provide the weighted average score for each of the 4 (5) main chapters and the total average score. The rating should be fully public (at least to FLO and all PNs, NFOs and the certified partners) in order to allow for transparency and benchmarking. It was pointed out that this may also provide the basis for a quick overview of key-weaknesses which might by country specific (and will help to focus PSR work in the HL-sector). Such increased transparency would as well be important from a positioning point of view.

53

An NGO made similar comments showing concern that a low aggregate score which could be counterbalanced by good performance in other areas i.e. the use of bonded labour could be balanced against a good performance on wages. It was highlighted that the SCORE system is more problematic on the HL farms than with SPOs. Again it was stressed that if SCORE is to be used in the Hired Labour situation it should not apply to those parts of the Standards which articulate the fundamental/core ILO Conventions: on Freedom of Association, Forced Labour, Child Labour and Discrimination, and in addition key implementation requirements, such as access to auditors, management of Premium Funds, etc should also be excluded. It is suggested that the requirement/information on how SCORE will be handled should be included in the general part of the Standard (and in the Certification Contract if necessary).

Overtime Several comments were included on overtime. FLO, and a producers questioned whether the restrictions on overtime were not too much i.e. in the case of tea picking in Malawi (where overtime is not restricted in a year and is there throughout, and in the case of flowers and Valentine’s day, where sometimes workers would prefer to work more overtime and earn a higher wage for the short period. On the other hand one of the trader/retailers and one of the NGO’s thought ‘that the exceptions given in the guidance are far too much if it is possible to apply all of them; “12 weeks per calendar year. 14 hours per day, 72 hours, 18continuous working days without rest.”’ Some flower producers requested in workshops to be able to ask for combined exceptions of daily overtime and continuous days of work.

Environmental A respondent from an organic association gave various comments concerning the environmental side of the HL standard:

• 4.2.7. Aerial spraying of pesticides does not fit with IPM. Aerial applications should be banned. There is no adequate way to protect the environment, waterways and the local population from drift.

• 4.3.3. Prohibiting “untreated” sewage sludge implies that treated sewage sludge can be used. Sewage sludge should be banned as likely to contain heavy metals, pollutants of various kinds, and pharmaceuticals that are not detected by usual testing.

• 4.4.1. All burning of hazardous wastes should be banned. Contamination of air quality is unavoidable.

• Neither the Red nor Amber lists appear to include Glyphosate N-(phosphononomethyl)glycine) which is an endocrine disruptor and selects for soil microorganisms that are pathogenic, reducing soil cohesiveness.

Other general suggestions FLO and not FLO-cert should be the owners of the Standard and that FLO should develop the standard checklist so that only requirements mentioned in the Standard where included. FLO-cert should be referred to as the Approved Certification Body (ACB). In addition there should be a sanction list developed by FLO. Several other aspects were also considered critical from the review of the impact study findings: the importance of training at all levels, funding and time allocation for joint bodies, Joint Body and workers committee membership rotation, gender, recommendations for Premium use in community projects and overtime regulations. Companies should be required to confirm in writing that they are paying all taxes due and that they do not use tax evasion practices. There should be awareness of one’s history in terms of achievements as well as failures of the Fairtrade Premium and so it is suggested to add a new requirement for both committees to write down the most important fact made during the year and to pass it on to the new elected members.

54

One producer commented that all standards should be country/region specific and cannot be a worldwide standard, and that workers should somehow be signatories/owners of the Fairtrade company. A trader suggested that because the costs of certification are making the Fairtrade products less competitive the employers should be allowed to use part of the Premium to cover the cost of compliance. A similar request asked for more clarification as to what can be financed by the Premium and what must be financed by the company. A suggestion by one of the trade unions was that the HL Standard should also make clear that the company must be in compliance with all national laws. In places where courts cannot offer adequate access to remedies for all the core labour rights, including freedom of association, then: (a) the standard should require the company to submit to legally binding arbitration enforceable in a place with a functioning court system; OR (b) there should be no Fairtrade certification possible in those locations. ‘The Standard should make clear that any time spent on implementing Fairtrade standards is compensated for all workers (not just pieceworkers, as stated in 1.1.7). It must be clear that this requirement applies to requirements 2.2.3, 2.1.12, and 4.2.4 which include trainings and other Fairtrade activities.’ Unease was expressed over the exception for work tools and protective cloths small companies. The fact that HL certificate is held by management/owner while Premium is held by a different body is a fundamental tension that needs to be addressed.

55

Annex 1 Total number of workers in Fairtrade certif ied HL plantations

Region and country Total number of workers

Africa and the Middle East 69183

Egypt 1785

Ethiopia 1733

Ghana 2963

Kenya 38562

Malawi 4129

Morocco 1907

Rwanda 2106

South Africa 9238

Swaziland 747

Tanzania 4542

Zimbabwe 1471

Asia and Oceania 87565

India 58016

Pakistan 6749

Philippines 56

Sri Lanka 22744 Latin America and the Caribbean 11435

Argentina 1572

Brazil 71

Chile 816

Colombia 2014

Costa Rica 335

Dominican Republic 1826

Ecuador 2075

Mexico 2726

Grand Total 168183

Source: Fairtrade International (2012). Monitoring data for 2010 – 2011.

56

Annex 5 Comprehensive overview of consultation ques tions

Comprehensive overview of Hired Labour consultation questions

workers questionnaire public questionnaire

Collective Empowerment – FoA and collective bargaini ng

1

Q1 (3.4.4) FT does not define the structure for worker organization/ workers’ must have some sort of representation before certification

Do you agree with the approach that Fairtrade does not define the structure in which workers should organize?

2 Do you agree that the timeline of the requirement for workers’ representation is maintained as a core requirement starting at year 0?

3

Q 2 ( 2.3.5) Do agree that trade unions should be invited to the workplace to inform about their activities?

Do you agree to include a requirement that trade unions have to be invited to the workplace to inform about their activities prior to initial certification?

4 Q 3 (long) Ideas for workers to organize w/out interference of management?

Do you have any ideas on how to ensure that workers organize themselves without the interference of management?

5 Do you agree with the content of the Freedom of Association protocol?

6 Do you agree that certified companies must sign the Freedom of Association protocol?

7

Do you agree that certified companies must communicate the right to unionize guarantee to workers by translating it into the appropriate languages, explaining it in full to workers and displaying it on all workers' notice boards?

Regional point of contact

8 Do you agree that the certified company must inform the workforce about the local point of contact and post relevant contact information in the workplace for all workers to see and understand?

Premium

9 Q 3 (short) 4 (2.1.22) some (up to 1/3) of the Premium money can be given to workers as cash/

Do you agree that it should be allowed that workers have the option to decide to use up to 30% of the Fairtrade Premium money per year as cash or cash equivalent?

57

10

Q 4 (short) Q 5 (long) (2.1.23) If cash is distributed PC must consult with workers’ reps (TU) to make sure that the collective bargaining process is not undermined?

Do you agree that, “In the case that Premium money is proposed to be distributed in cash or cash equivalent to workers, the Premium Committee must consult with elected workers’ representatives to ensure that the collective bargaining process is not undermined”, is introduced into the Fairtrade HL Standard?

11

Do you agree with the introduction of requirement that companies must ensure that the Premium Committee leads a general assembly of all workers at least once a year. The purpose of the GA is to report on (see requirement 2.1.20) and democratically approve the Fairtrade Premium Plan?

12 Q5 (short) Q6 (long) management should speak but not vote on Premium use

Do you agree that management representatives should have no voting rights in the Fairtrade Premium Committee / Joint Body?

13 Do you agree with the introduction of a mechanism in the HL Standard that allows workers access to existent Premium money in the event that a company decertifies or is dissolved?

14 Do you agree that Fairtrade Premium must be transferred to the Fairtrade Premium accounts as soon as possible or in exceptional circumstances within 30 days?

Wages

15 Do you agree with including a safety net of 1.25 US$ per day?

Do you agree with introducing a safety net in year 3 so that wages are at least above the extreme poverty level line set by the World Bank?

16 Q8 long (N/A short) (3.5.5) Do you agree with reinforcing a regular increase in wages?

Do you agree with reinforcing a regular increase in wages by moving it to a core requirement in year 3?

17

Q9 long (N/A short)Do you agree with the requirement that negotiations to reach a living wage must be started in year 6?

Do you agree with the enforcement of a development requirement that negotiations to reach a living wage must be started in year 6?

18

Do you agree with the change of timeline from year 6 to Development year 3 in requirement 3.5.23 Local and migrant, seasonal/temporary and permanent workers must receive equivalent benefits and employment conditions for equal work performed. In cases where equivalent benefits, such as a pension scheme or social security, cannot be made available to a set of workers, e.g. migrant workers, these workers must receive the equivalent or an alternative through other means?

19 Changed timeline for grievance procedure

58

20 Q 6 (short) Q10 (long) Do you agree with the added definition of decent housing in guidance?

Do you agree with adding the definition of decent housing in guidance?

Additional new requirements

21 Q 9 (7) Your company must share audit results with workers

1.1.2 Your company must share audit results with workers following each audit in a way that workers, through their representatives, understand these results.

22 10 (8) Fairtrade International representatives must be able to meet with workers

1.1.3 Your company must allow Fairtrade International representatives to interact with workers to discuss matters related to Fairtrade as needed.

23 Company must have a legitimate right to land use and land tenure.

24 11 (9) assess home community of migrant workers

2.1.16 Your company must carry out a needs assessment of the home community from which most migrant workers come. This must be shared with the Fairtrade Premium Committee so that the Committee can consider and discuss the possibility of developing Fairtrade Premium projects in migrant worker home communities.

25 12 The Premium committee must adiminister the Premium funds responsibly,

2.1.19 The Premium committee must administer the Premium funds responsibly, therefore a risk assessment must be undertaken for all projects and investments.

26 13 Your company must undertake activities to achieve equity in the workplace.

2.2.6 Your company must undertake activities to achieve equity in the workplace. This includes specifically addressing the employment and promotion of people from disadvantaged and minority groups as well as the promotion of workers.

27

3.1.9 All workers, regardless of nationality or residency status, including temporary, seasonal and migrant workers, must have the right to be elected for the workers' committee and/or the Fairtrade Premium Committee, or if necessary be represented by a permanent worker.

28 14 (10) the company must pay any recruitment or agency and visa fees incurred and pay travel costs.

3.5.28 If your company recruits workers from other regions or countries, you must pay any recruitment or agency and visa fees incurred. You must also pay travel costs for these workers to and from their home country or region at the onset and end of their work period if the work period is less than one year.

59

29 3.5.29 If your company employs permanent or seasonal/temporary migrant workers, you must ensure that they have been recruited legally.

30

Applicable for the Dominican Republic only 3.1.10 To guarantee non-discrimination and equal treatment to all workers, your company must guarantee that migrant workers have a valid passport and visa allowing them to legally work, or an official receipt proving that the documentation process is in progress.

Deleted requirements

31 Do you agree with the deletion of requirement 1.1.1.3 The employer must demonstrate that any Fairtrade revenues will promote the social and economic development of the workers?

32 Do you agree with the deletion of requirement 1.1.1.7, The company has access to adequate administration and communication equipment and to all necessary logistical systems?

33 Do you agree with the deletion of requirement 1.1.2.4, An effective and appropriate quality management system is in place within a year of certification?

34

Do you agree with the deletion of requirement 2.2.2, Within two years of certification, the Joint Body prepares the Premium work plan by applying the following instruments: consultation, budgeting, rules for project selection, planning, monitoring and evaluation?

35

Do you agree with the deletion of requirement 2.1.15, The certification body, Joint Body members and, if it exists, the internal audit committee have the right to check the relevant books of the Fairtrade Premium account?

36

Do you agree with the deletion of requirement 1.1.2.5, The company has an appropriate human resources management system that is charged with implementing good industrial relations, training programmes and the development of its employees?

consultation results synopsis information to stakeholders ...consultation period 06.05.2013 –...

Documents