Accreditation - Accreditation Process - To Apply - Fees - Complaints & Appeals

Complaint #019: CCC and ICN Against Certification of FFI/JKPL factories

Details of Facility:
- Five SA8000 Certified Facilities , Fibres & Fabrics International Private Limited (FFI), owner of subsidiary, Jeans Knit Private Limited (JKPL)
-Manufacturers and exporters of knitted garments
-Bangalore, India
-Certification Bodies: DNV (1 site) SGS (2 sites)TUV SUD South Asia (2 sites)

Complaint: Given the outstanding labor issues and the continuing denial of freedom of association, the fact that SAI has engaged in a certification process without meaningful stakeholder consultation, and the fact that a remediation process with stakeholder involvement is meaningless, CCC and ICN deem SAI to have violated the standards of its own certification process.

Actions Taken:
November 29, 2006, a formal complaint was sent to SAI by CCC and ICN that the certifications were improper because the factories were not currently compliant with several elements of SA8000 and that the certification bodies had not conducted the required meaningful stakeholder consultations phase of the audit process. Note: there are some SA8000 requirements which require auditors to ascertain past practices as they affect current compliance, e.g. firings that might relate to denial of Freedom of Association. Detecting these types of situations requires appropriate stakeholder consultations and a thorough review of the company’s grievance handling.

This complaint was taken in at SAI in three parts:

1) Complaint to certifiers that certification was improper: a complaint to the certification bodies. December 2006, SAI (now SAAS) forwarded the complaints to the 3 CBs and requested detailed audit reports on all five factories, so as to follow the CBs’ progress in resolving this complaint. This complaint is first required to be investigated by the certification body as they are granters of certification. 2) Complaint to SAI (now SAAS) that its accreditation requirements not met by the three certification bodies. In addition to the above, SAI (now SAAS) requested from the three CBs updates on their stakeholder consultation processes. This is a complaint about the organizations directly overseen by SAI. The CBs replied that local complainants considered themselves prohibited from speaking about the factories so the certification bodies did not succeed in gathering evidence on the issues raised. 3) Under SAI’s Corporate Program (CP), Explorer, Compliant Management System (CMS), relative to Gap Inc membership and supplier relationship with FFI/JKPL.

Review of reports and evidence on stakeholder consultations by the certifying bodies showed that they had been undertaken, with mixed effectiveness. Root causes include: the inability to move forward in gathering evidence due to the restraining order granted in July 2006 and sustained in February 2007; some possible conflicts of interest among NGOs consulted, and insufficient expertise in stakeholder interview techniques on the audit teams. The certification bodies were so informed.

December 2006: Accreditation agency office audits of DNV and TUV SUD South Asia took place in Chennai and Mumbai. These visits included review of stakeholder consultation.

Note: SAI also took in this complaint under its Corporate Programs Complaint Management System. In this capacity, SAI continued over several months to directly engage with FFI management , other MSIs and other stakeholders in a concerted effort to facilitate the resolution of the complaints by bringing the parties together in discussion. Additionally, the freedom of association expert on the SAAS audit team sought to facilitate a meeting among the parties, but did not succeed, as neither party found compromises offered by the other to be adequate terms for a meeting..

March 20-23, 2007: The witness phase of an accreditation audit at SGS consisted of witnessing the first surveillance audit of an FFI site. The SAAS accreditation audit team which observed SGS included an expert on freedom of association. Subsequent to the two days on site, the expert conducted a local investigation into a limited number of aspects raised in the complaint. This investigation found audit planning inadequate especially in terms of conducting the required due diligence and stakeholder consultations. Evidence could not be developed on other aspects of the complaint because of the restraining order . As repeatedly noted, and highlighted in the next item, complaints being heard and responded to, is a specific SA8000 requirement.

April 2007: staff brought this unprecedented matter to the attention of the Accreditation Committee, which duly considered it and approved a public statement clarifying that in all cases, anywhere, an SA8000 compliant organization must receive complaints, allow investigation of complaints and respond to stakeholders.

May, June, August 2007; All three certification bodies suspended certification for all five factories, based on Corrective Actions related to stakeholder consultation and complaints response systems and the restraining order. The suspensions allowed, variously, 3 or 6 months for correction before withdrawal if correction not in place.

August, and November 2007: certifications were withdrawn for four sites, and continues to be suspended for the fifth site.

Resolution of Complaints:

1) Pertaining to the certifications: certifications not in effect. 2) Pertaining to accredited organizations stakeholder consultation protocols: Structured stakeholder consultation workshops are taking place in China, India and Italy; more emphasis placed on this key element of audit planning at training, and in accreditation audits.

Update: SAAS is pleased to share that an agreement has been reached between FFI/JKPL owners and CCC/India Committee of the Netherlands. Further information on the resolution can be found at the CCC website.