Report Addresses Labor Practices At 5 Factory Sites

"It's a piece of hard data," said Rut Tufts, director of auxiliary services and co-chairman of the Licensing and Labor Code Advisory Committee, which released the report. "It provides the solid groundwork for further study."

UNC, along with five other major institutions including Duke University, participated in the study that began September 1999 and was codesigned by the Collegiate Licensing Company.

In the study, five U.S. companies under contract with these institutions, including JanSport, College Concepts and M.J. Soffe, allowed one of their company's manufacturing sites to be monitored by Verite, a nonprofit auditing organization hired by the CLC. The factories studied were located in Costa Rica, El Salvador, Korea, Mexico and Taiwan.

The report answered demands set forth in the agreement reached in April 1999 between interim Chancellor Bill McCoy and the student activist group Students for Economic Justice.

The agreement ended a three-day student sit-in held in the lobby of South Building where students demanded full public disclosure of all factory locations that produce UNC apparel. "(The study) shows that our licensees have a long way to go in eliminating sweatshops," said Todd Pugatch, a senior member of SEJ and student representative for the advisory committee. "It's a good first step to see what challenges are involved in eliminating them."

Tufts said the study conducted preliminary monitoring according to nine specific labor standards that UNC supports, including living wages, working hours, child labor and safety.

The company also tested how informed and ready the factories were in adhering to labor codes and standards.

Monitoring at most sites is currently done by labor watchdog agencies such as the Fair Labor Association, of which UNC is a member. The FLA monitors through a system of internal auditors and delegates who work directly with the companies being examined, while Verite acts as an independent, third-party monitor.

Verite reported recommendations for changes at each factory site, which was then given four to five months to implement the changes. Re-evaluations were then conducted to see the progress made in each factory. Additional management follow-ups were conducted as needed. "We found that all these sites have problems, and this wasn't a surprise," Tufts said.

"We have begun to see improvements. (The committee's) goal has been to improve the factories, not to catch them (in violation). Implementation is important -- you don't get anything done by catching them."

But Tufts said there are two main obstacles to monitoring and implementation -- the excessive cost and UNC's indirect contact with the factories. Tufts said it takes about $3,000 to $3,500 to monitor a site. UNC has 585 licensees and at least 2,500 manufacturing sites working for the licensees.

Tufts also said UNC's indirect relationship to the factory sites -- and the number of middlemen involved -- makes it hard to implement labor codes that UNC supports. The University has a contract with the CLC, and it is the CLC that deals directly with the licensees. And Tufts said the licensees often don't own the factory sites where implementation is most crucial.

He said each company has its own codes and that factories must adhere to all of them. "In the debate over labor issues, code implementation has largely been overlooked -- yet it's the hardest part," Tufts said.

"This is just chapter one of a 100-chapter book."

The University Editor can be reached at udesk@unc.edu.