Uzbek cotton : a new spin on child labour in the clothing industry?

This case describes the controversy( ) surrounding the use of cotton sourced from Uzbekistan by high

street clothing brands and retailers. It sets out the allegations of poor working conditions in the industry, most

notably around child and forced lobour, and traces the subsequent response by major companies. It offers an

opportunity ot examine questions of human rights in the supply chain, specifically in the context of an

oppressive regime, and prompts consideration of the extent of corporate responsibilities for protecting workers

right.

Most clothing brands and retailers have become accustomed to dealing with problems of child labour in their

supply chains, Codes of conduct banning the most unsavoury sweatshop practices, regular factory audits, and

other measures are now largely standard practice in the industry, But these initiatives usually just start and finish

at the gates of the factories making the clotes. What about the raw materials, such as cotton, which are used to

make the clothes in the first place? Cotton is the indispensable element in most of the clothes we wear, shirts, T-

shirts, jeans, dresses, underwear-You name it, cotton goes into it . The question of who grows that cotton,

however, and under what kind of conditions they work, is rarely one that we think too much about. But all that

started to change when revelations started emerging in 2005 that Uzbekistan, the world’s second largest cotton

exporter, made extensive use of forced child labour in harvesting its annual cotton crop. With a 2007 BBC

programme exposing how classrooms were emptied across the country every year to pick the harvest, child

labour, it seemed, was once again set to become a major ethical problem for major clothing Brands.

The Uzbek cotton industry:

The central Asian republic of Uzbekistan, a former part of the Soviet union, is one of five countries domination

global cotton production, the others being China, the US, India, and Pakistan> Uzbekistan is widely regarded as

being an oppressive regime, led by president Islam Karimov, who has been in power since 1991. The country has

limited media freedoms, low levels of democracy, high corruption, and a poor record of human rights violations.

The Uzbek government rigidly controls cotton production, using a Soviet-style quota system. This involves

compulsory state purchase, and various forms of pressure to ensure that targets are met.

According to the Environmental justice Foundation, “cotton production int the central Asian Republic of

Uzbekistan represents one of the most exploitative enterprises in the world’. Due to the low, centrally set prices

paid to farmers for their quota, a large proportion of the profits generated by cotton exports are retained by

regional governors and the state. Cotton farmers typically persist on low pay with poor working conditions.

Reports from the foreign media and NGOs have identified a range of human rights violations in the industry, the

most serious of which concern the use of forced and child labour.

Child labour accusations:

According to many independent observers, child labour has long been rife in the Uzbek cotton industry, and it has

been actively condoned and even facilitated by the state. Due to underinvestment in technology, some 90%of

Uzbek cotton is harvested by hand rather than by machine, as it is in most other countries. It is alleged that the

need for labour during the cotton harvest is so acute, and cost pressures form regional governors are so heavy,

that much of the harvesting ends up being carried out by children, Reports suggest that during the harvesting

season ( typically from September to November), schools are closed and tens of thousands of children are

compulsorily transported to the fields to help with the harvest. Younger children are returned home by bus or

truck every day. But older children often spend the season living in barrack-style accommodation in local farm or

school buildings, sometimes without water or electricity. During this time, child cotton workers can miss up to

three months of school, usually toiling all day at strenuous manual work. The children are poorly paid ( around

40 cents a day), and have to pay for their work after deductions have been made.

This desultory picture of Uzbek cotton industry was first exposed in detail in a comprehensive 2005 report from

the Environmental Justice Foundation. Running to some 45 pages, the report, white Gold: The True cost of

cotton, set the child labour allegations within the broader context of the authoritarian nature of the Uzbek regime

and the complex cotton trading system. In addition to child labour and other human rights abused, the report also

detailed a swathe of environmental problems associated with the cotton industry in Uzbekistan. Concluding that “

cotton production in Uzbekistan occurs within a framework of systematic exploitation, human rights violations,

and environmental destruction”, the report argued that “ Clothing manufacturers and retailers have an obligation

to look beyond the “ Sweatshops” and into the cotton fields …. Corporate enterprises must make a critical

assessment of their role in driving the problems … and demonstrate that their supply chain does not exacerbate

the chronic situation within Uzbekistan.

At first, the response from the international business community was muted. As the Executive Director of the

Environmental Justice Foundation Put it: “EJF has lobbies clothing retailers and manufacturers, using testimonies

from children who are forcibly enlisted into an underpaid, overworked army of cotton comes from, our supply

chain is too complicated and so we can’t tell where the cotton comes from, our supply chain is too complicated

and so we can’t boycott Uzbek cotton, even if we wanted to “. Case closed so to speak”

To some extent the corporation had a point. Because of the complexity of international supply chains, the

provenance of the cotton used in any particular garment is very difficult to determine. Countries such as

Uzbekistan sell their cotton to international commodities trading companies, who teen sell it on to a chain of

processor, manufacturers, and stitchers, before it arrives as a complete garment on the shelves of retailers. The

commodity nature of cotton means that a final product will typically consist of cotton form a variety of sources.

So, whilst clothes usually feature a label stating where the product was made, the source of its raw materials

usually remains invisible to buyers.

As the pressure increased on firms though, the message started to change. Further NGO reports, a series of

articles in Ethical Corporation magazine, and a corporate workshop held by the Ethical Trading initiative all

helped to push home the seriousness of the situation. Then, in 2007, a BBC documentary screened nationally in

the UK brought the issues the wider public’s attention, and quickly the tide began to turn. First, in a joint venture

with EJN launched in September 2007, the UK-based T-shirt manufacturer, Continental Clothing, started labeling

all its garments with the country of origin of the cotton in order to assure consumers that the firm’s cotton did not

originate from Uzbekistan. Then the Finnish clothing design company, Marimekko, and the Estonian textile

producer, Krenholm, both announced a boycott of Uzbek cotton in November 2007> By 2008, a string of

clothing brands and retailers had signed up to the boycott, including the UK retailers Asda, Tesco, and Marks and

Spencer, the Swedish chain H&M, and the US brand, Gap and Levi’s. Suddenly the impossible was possible.

The boycott marked a major victory for campaigners. The question that remained though was whether it would

have any tangible impact on the lives of forced child laborers in Uzbekistan. If companies simply stopped

purchasing Uzbek cotton, their customer’s consciences might become clearer, but farmers could end up in even

harsher economic conditions. Further compounding the problem was the realization that even if retailers switched

to cotton sourced from other countries, labour problems might still be prevalent. For example, neighboring

Turkmenistan and Tajikistan also produce cotton and have less repressive regimes than Uzbekistan-but remain of

concern to campaigners for their apparent disregard for international labour standards.

On the other hand, it was evident that the boycott could just push the Uzbekis to target other markets less

concerned about their exploitative labour practices. Indeed, despite the ban by large western companies,

Uzbekistan continued to expand its other markets for exported cotton in the late 2000s, particularly in Asia. For

example, at the 2008 international Uzbek Cotton Fair, officials signed export deals worth about $1bn, amounting

to some 950,000 tonnes of cotton fibre. Among the chief purchasers were China, indis, Pakistan, Bangladesh,

South Korea, and the United Arab Emirates.

The boycott, it seemed, looked set to solve some of the retailers immediate problems, but was not necessarily

going to address all of the deeper underlying problems for Uzbek workers. A major turning point was reached,

however, in September 2008 when the Uzbekistan government announced that it would ban children under 16

from picking cotton and signed ILO conventions committing the country to stop using child labour. This had the

potential to really make a difference in the cotton fields for those most at risk. Nonetheless, campaigners

remained unconvinced that uch would change, given the poor record of the Uzbek authorities. As one industry

expert commented: There is a distinct lack of trust among many observers as to whether the measures will be

implemented. Further reports of exploitation form NGOs seemed to back up these initial doubts. With options

running out , some commentators even suggested that Western companies might need to expand beyond a

boycott to an engagement-type strategy with the government to lobby for beeper change and help develop the

state’s capacity for roubust enforcement procedures. But with their products no longer tainted by the spectre of

Uzbek child labour, the incentives for corporations to take further action seemed to be on the wane.