(2) Also note that H&M uses the word “clear responsibility for brands” instead of “individual responsibility for the brand”. We`re sure it`s intentional, and it comes closest to the company to answer our question. Our concern and that of the unions is that H&M is negotiating a deal behind the scenes that includes a “brand association” that does not hold individual companies accountable for safety risks. In addition, we suspect that the reason H&M mentions a tripartite structure is to draw attention to the RMG Sustainability Council (the body that currently implements the MoUs in Bangladesh) and to move away from discussing a binding agreement. A tripartite structure means working with three parties to reach an agreement: in this case, trade unions, employers and governments. And yet, unions have already said they will not participate in the RMG Sustainability Council unless brands sign a new binding agreement by the August deadline. In other words, there won`t be a tripartite structure to brag about unless H&M and other brands sign a new deal. PayUp Fashion contacted H&M to ask if they would commit to a new deal. The company responded, evading our questions and trying to confuse the problem. Don`t worry, we`re here to dispel their PR twist. Here are our questions to H&M and the answers from H&M`s Head of Sustainability Commitment, which we demystified one by one. Here, H&M again avoids the issue and draws attention to the RMG Sustainability Council and away from the Agreement. (4) This campaign calls for the renewal of a legally binding agreement on safety at work.

Only with binding agreement, including trademark applicability and independent oversight, can the vital benefits of the Agreement be extended to other countries. (5) What H&M is proposing is that they are prepared to expand the CBC to other countries, but this statement is somewhat meaningless. There is no known plan to extend the CBC model while there is the possibility of extending the Accord. Without the Accord agreement, which works within the CBC, it only means that the brand wants to extend voluntary occupational health and safety systems without liability to other countries that already exist and are not effective. H&M has completely dodged the question of whether or not they support a legally binding agreement. (1) The agreement is effective precisely because it is a legally binding agreement with the responsibility of the individual trade mark. That`s what the whole campaign around the extension of the agreement is all about: preserving and expanding the legally binding agreement that ultimately holds brands accountable for the safety of workers in their supply chain. Whether or not H&M supports such a deal is a simple yes or no question with an answer that appears to be “no” from now on. By providing irrelevant information about working with unions (a tactic called paltering), H&M is trying to appear progressive while diverting attention from a very simple issue, namely whether or not they support a binding agreement on worker safety. The Bangladesh Accord on Fire and Building Safety is a groundbreaking agreement on workplace safety first signed in 2013 by unions and more than 200 global brands, including H&M, Zara, UNIQLO, Adidas and Primark, following the Rana Plaza disaster that killed and injured more than 3,700 garment manufacturers who were sewing clothes for global brands. including Walmart, Mango, Primark, The Children`s Place and Joe Fresh. The agreement has been incredibly successful in eliminating more than 144,000 workplace safety risks and saving hundreds, if not thousands, of lives, and precisely because the agreement has been such a success, the PayUp Fashion coalition and Remake are partnering with other workers` representatives to support the expansion of key components into a successor agreement.

We call on H&M to lead the way in negotiating this strong new agreement. This is filled with misleading statements. (3) H&M wants the public to think that the RMG Sustainability Council and the Accord are the same thing and do the same job. This is not the case. The CBC never intended to replace the agreement itself. While it is true that the CBC is the local body currently responsible for implementing the protocols and principles of the agreement, when the agreement expires on August 31, 2021, the CBC will be just another sustainability council managed according to voluntary standards and with no union participation that we know will not ensure the safety of apparel manufacturers. “Supporting factory-level unions within the H&M supply chain has been one of the main objectives of the GFA between IndustriALL Global Union and H&M. In addition, several new unions were registered at the plant level in the first year of the implementation process.

This is an important step in developing well-functioning labour relations. It should be noted that these newly formed unions and their management colleagues need to build capacity to achieve well-functioning industrial relations. .