Hughes

Journal of Economic Geography 7 (2007) pp. 491–513 doi:10.
1093/jeg/lbm011
Advance Access Published on 4 May 2007
Organisational geographies of corporate

responsibility: a UK–US comparison of retailers’
ethical trading initiatives
Alex Hughes,y, Martin Buttle and Neil Wrigley
Abstract
Ethical trade, involving corporate codes of conduct for sites of production, has become
a key means through which labour in retailers’ global supply chains is regulated.
Yet, there is evidence to suggest that retail corporations vary markedly in their
approaches to ethical trade and that such variation is shaped, in part, by the national-
institutional contexts in which retailers are based. This article explores this insight by
evaluating the distinct roles played by multi-stakeholder initiatives for ethical trade
in the UK and USA. While the UK’s core multi-stakeholder initiative, the Ethical
Trading Initiative (ETI), encompasses retailers from a variety of sectors and takes a
developmental and continuous learning approach to ethical trade, the US multi-
stakeholder initiatives are focussed more on corporate accountability based on
compliance monitoring exclusively in the clothing sector. Given recent organisational
attempts to foster transnational dialogue between multi-stakeholder initiatives, though,
we argue that the precise ways in which national-institutional contexts shape retailers’
ethical trading approaches are fluid and mutable. We contribute to the literature on the
governance of global supply chains, retailer power and corporate responsibility by
emphasising the political significance of national-institutional environments. However,
in line with notions of relational economic geography, we understand these national-
institutional environments as active and dynamic contexts, and accentuate the
coalitional ways in which nationally based organisations evolve in their home countries
and go on to shape broader transnational agendas for ethical trade.
Keywords: ethical trade, retailers, corporate responsibility, multi-stakeholder organisations

JEL classifications: F10, F23, J80, L30, L81
Date submitted: 4 December 2006 Date accepted: 16 February 2007
1. Introduction
Ethical trade, involving corporate codes of conduct for sites of production, has become
a key means of regulating labour in retailers’ global supply chains since the mid-1990s
(Blowfield, 1999; Barrientos, 2000; Jenkins, 2002).1 Yet, there is evidence to suggest that
y
Corresponding author. Alex Hughes, School of Geography, Politics and Sociology, Newcastle University,
Newcastle upon Tyne, NE1 7RU, UK. email 5Alex.Hughes@ncl.ac.uk4

School of Geography, Politics and Sociology, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE1 7RU, UK.

School of Geography, University of Southampton, UK.
1 Ethical trade, involving codes of conduct for minimum labour standards in supply chains, contrasts
markedly with the much more radical and developmental project of fair trade, which has the goals of
producer empowerment and equitable trading terms at its heart. However, there can be a blurring of the
boundaries of the two movements in some cases (Smith and Barrientos, 2005).
ß The Author (2007). Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org
492 . Hughes et al.
retail corporations vary markedly in their approaches to ethical trade (Hughes, 2005)
and that such variation is shaped, in part, by the national-institutional contexts in
which the retailers are based (Christopherson and Lillie, 2005). This article develops this
insight both empirically and theoretically by presenting a comparative analysis of UK
and US multi-stakeholder initiatives (MSIs) for ethical trade, which comprise different
combinations of corporations, non-governmental organisations (NGOs), trade unions,
national government representatives and consumer groups. Such organisations have
played a pivotal role over the past decade in shaping retailers’ strategic approaches to
responsible sourcing in their global supply chains. We show that there is a marked
contrast between the UK and USA in terms of the genesis, structure and strategies of
these influential MSIs; a contrast shaped in part by the embeddedness of the MSIs in
distinct consumer campaigning environments. So while Christopherson and Lillie
(2005) highlight the significance of national-level industrial relations systems and
company practices in shaping retailers’ global labour standards strategies, this article
emphasises the additional influence of consumer-driven campaigns and national-level
ethical trading organisations in the home economies of retailers.
Conceptually, we aim to contribute to the growing literature on the governance of
global supply chains, retailer power and geographies of corporate responsibility by
emphasising the political significance of the national-institutional environments in
which retailers and brands are based. However, in line with relational/network-based
conceptualisations of globalisation and its regulation (Dicken et al., 2001; Amin, 2002,
2004; Bathelt and Gluckler, 2003), we understand these national-institutional
environments as active and dynamic contexts and accentuate the coalitional ways in
which nationally based MSIs both evolve in their home countries and go on to shape
broader transnational agendas for ethical trade.
In terms of the origins of the ethical trading movement, commentators have
documented the rise of corporate codes of conduct as private forms of supply chain
regulation in the context of globalisation and neoliberalism (Blowfield, 1999;
McClintock, 1999; Jenkins et al., 2002; Esbenshade, 2004; Merk, 2005). Drivers of
voluntary ethical trading initiatives are suggested to be: (i) the growth of global supply
chains which extend beyond the reach of national governments; (ii) the rise in the power
of corporate brands and reputation, which make large companies vulnerable to negative
publicity; (iii) an increase in public awareness of overseas production conditions via
improvements in global communications; (iv) the growing importance to the investment
community of ethical performance on the part of public companies (Blowfield, 1999;
Barrientos, 2000; Adams, 2002; Jenkins et al., 2002). As a response to campaigning and
the threat of critical media attention, retailers and brand manufacturers since the 1990s
have initiated ethical trading strategies that tend most commonly to centre on a code of
conduct for labour practice derived from core International Labour Organisation (ILO)
conventions (Murray, 2002).2 Practices of auditing are then typically used to monitor the
degree to which the codes are enforced by their suppliers in practice (Hughes, 2001b;
Barrientos, 2002; O’Rourke, 2002). While much of the growing literature on ethical trade
has rightly evaluated its impacts on development and working conditions at sites of
production (Barrientos, 2000; Mather, 2004; Hale and Opondo, 2005), the key focus of
2 Blowfield (1999) has pointed out that while some ethical codes of conduct also incorporate environmental
clauses, the majority centre on labour standards.
Organisational geographies of corporate responsibility . 493
this article is on the development of ethical trading agendas in the home countries of the
retailers, and how these agendas are informed in different ways by national-level MSIs.
The article proceeds, first, with the positioning of our UK–US case study of ethical
trade MSIs in the context of broader literatures on retailer-driven global supply chains,
geographies of corporate responsibility and the governance of labour standards,
advancing a relational understanding of national-institutional contexts in these debates.
Second, we move on to present our comparative analysis of the strategic significance of
national-level ethical trading MSIs, attending to the following three themes for the UK
and USA in turn: (i) the emergence of MSIs in particular national contexts for
campaigning; (ii) their structure and governance; and (iii) the strategic approaches to
ethical trade they advocate. Following this comparison, attention turns to a recent
transnational initiative in which both UK and US MSIs are collaborating to develop a
common approach to ethical trade. Throughout the discussion, it is suggested that
national-institutional contexts play a powerful role in shaping particular philosophies
and practices of ethical trade, which in turn are purported to influence retailers’
strategies for responsible global sourcing. However, our comparative analysis shows
that these national-level institutions and influences are themselves far from rigid and
immutable. Rather, they are fluid and dynamic as they continually evolve through
multi-stakeholder networks at different spatial scales.
The empirical material reported in the article derives from a research project
sponsored by the Economic and Social Research Council in the UK, which aims to
evaluate UK and US differences in retailers’ approaches to ethical trade in the food and
clothing sectors. The extensive fieldwork for this research involves 96 in-depth
interviews with UK and US ethical trade practitioners working for leading corporate
food and clothing retailers and those involved in campaigning for, and developing,
ethical trade on behalf of multi-stakeholder organisations, NGOs and trade unions.
This particular article draws on 44 in-depth interviews conducted in 2005 and 2006 with
key informants central to the development of the ethical trading agenda and
campaigning in the UK and USA. These include representatives from prominent
MSIs,3 NGOs, international trade unions, college-based campaigning organisations
and journalists. Representatives of organisations quoted in the paper are not always
named, in order to respect the wishes of those interviewed.
2. Retailer-driven global supply chains, geographies of corporate

responsibility and the governance of global labour standards
2.1. Retailer-driven global supply chains
The power wielded by retailers in supply chains has been the subject of research over the
past 20 years or so in a range of disciplines, including development studies, economic
sociology, agricultural economics, management and economic geography. From the late
1980s and through the 1990s, commentators noted a shift in the balance of power from
manufacturing suppliers to retailers amidst the more broad-reaching economic growth of
service sector industries in advanced capitalist economies. Some of this research noted the
3 The Ethical Trading Initiative (ETI) in the UK, and the Fair Labor Association (FLA), Worker Rights
Consortium (WRC), Social Accountability International (SAI) and the Worldwide Responsible Apparel
Production (WRAP) in the USA, as well as the transnational Joint Initiative on Corporate Accountability
and Workers Rights (JO-IN) project.
494 . Hughes et al.
increasingly creative and manipulative ways in which powerful food and clothing
retailers, in particular, were crafting relationships with their own-brand suppliers-
dictating pricing and payment terms and making strict demands on producers in terms of
product specifications and delivery times (Grant, 1987; Crewe and Davenport, 1992;
Bowlby and Foord, 1995; Doel, 1996). From the mid-1990s onwards, academics also
documented the increasing globalisation of retailers’ supply chains within a broader
political-economic context of neoliberalism, retail FDI liberalisation and rapidly
expanding transnational retail activity (Wrigley, 2000; Reardon et al., 2003; Coe, 2004;
Coe and Hess, 2005; Wrigley et al., 2005), observing the application of aggressive models
of retailer-led supply chain management to transnational trading links (Hale, 2000;
Hughes, 2001a; Barrett et al., 2004; Crewe, 2004; Dolan and Humphrey, 2004; Kritzinger
et al., 2004). Studies on retailer buying power in global supply chains have drawn, in
particular, on the notion of global commodity chains (Gereffi and Korzeniewicz, 1994)
and, more recently, the global value chain approach (Gereffi et al., 2005), in order to
understand the buyer-driven forms of coordination and organisation used by retailers in
their global sourcing strategies (Dolan and Humphrey, 2004; Kritzinger et al., 2004;
Gibbon and Ponte, 2005). It is against this backdrop of retailer power in the supply chain
that ethical trading programmes have been called for and developed.
2.2. Geographies of corporate responsibility and the governance

of labour standards
There is a largely parallel, though similarly burgeoning, literature in the social sciences
on the widespread development of corporate responsibility, or corporate citizenship, as
a movement permeating the workings of capitalism including global supply chains
(McIntosh et al., 1998; Hemphill, 2004; Sadler, 2004; Valor, 2005). While this
movement has a long history, in a globalising era dominated by discourses of
neoliberalism and privatisation it has signalled the displacement of various social,
political and regulatory functions from traditional governmental institutions such as the
nation-state to the corporate realm (Marsden and Wrigley, 1995; Matten et al., 2003;
Grit, 2004). In the specific case of ethical trade, this shift of responsibility from the
public to the private sphere means that it is now corporations (including retailers) who
take prime responsibility for labour standards at sites of production (Esbenshade, 2004;
Christopherson and Lillie, 2005). This is particularly the case where retailers’ supply
chains cross national borders and extend beyond the regulatory reach of individual
national governments (Blowfield, 1999; Jenkins et al., 2002). Moreover, a range of
different groups with a stake in specific aspects of corporate responsibility programmes,
including NGOs and trade unions, have become enrolled in organisational networks
that shape corporate agendas for social (and environmental) responsibility (Oliverio
and Simmons, 2002; Doh and Guay, 2006). The field of ethical trade is no exception
(Braun and Gearhart, 2004; Lipschutz, 2004) and the formation of MSIs represents a
clear example of such collaborative and coalitional organisational networks.
In terms of the tools and techniques used to make the movement of corporate
responsibility practicable, one of the key observations to make is the rise of various
codes, standards and certification systems that have emerged increasingly to govern and
re-regulate the global economy (Clark and Tickell, 2005; Mutersbaugh et al., 2005).
Different kinds of codes and certification systems have been applied to the sphere
of transnational trade, including standards for quality and safety (Le Heron, 2003;
Barling and Lang, 2005) and certification systems for organic produce and fair trade
(Raynolds, 2000; Renard, 2003, 2005). In terms of ethical trade, the absence of a WTO
social clause (Haworth et al., 2005) and the lack of global enforcement of ILO
conventions, along with anti-corporate campaigning, have laid the foundations for
voluntary codes of conduct concerning labour standards (Pearson and Seyfang, 2001;
Freidberg, 2003, 2004; Sadler, 2004; Christopherson and Lillie, 2005). These codes,
developed by corporations in collaboration with other stakeholder groups, have
become key tools in the re-regulation of global labour standards.
Recognising the diversity of the global standards movement and its application to the
governance of trade, geographers in particular have conducted research on the power-
laden practices through which codes and standards are often developed in the global
North and applied to sites of production in the global South (Mutersbaugh, 2002;
Freidberg, 2003). With specific relevance for this article, Christopherson and Lillie (2005)
complement these perspectives by evaluating the embeddedness of standards in sites of
retail and cultures of capital circulation. Asserting the importance of the national
contexts in which retailers are based, they analyse the contrasting cases of the Swedish-
based furniture retailer, IKEA, and the US mass merchandiser, Wal-Mart. They suggest
that while IKEA’s approaches to improving labour standards in its transnational supply
chains link closely to the labour and union-friendly social norms in its Swedish home
context, the minimalist and defensive strategies of Wal-Mart derive from the American
model of economic organisation associated with the externalisation of cost and risk and
more adversarial supply relationships. In our analysis, we aim to build on this insight
from Christopherson and Lillie regarding the role played by the country of origin of
retailers in shaping their approaches to improving global labour standards, highlighting
the role of national-level, consumer-driven ethical trading intitiatives.
2.3 Understanding the significance of national-institutional contexts: beyond

‘scalar regulation’4
One of the main themes in this paper, then, is that the national-institutional contexts in
which retailers and brands are based play a key role in shaping their corporate
approaches to applying labour codes in their global supply chains. Following Martin
(2000, 79–80), we understand institutional contexts to encompass both ‘institutional
environments’ (referring to informal conventions and norms for corporate practice,
consumer culture, etc.) and ‘institutional arrangements’ (referring to specific organisa-
tional forms such as the state, companies, unions, regulatory agencies etc.). In our
comparative analysis of UK and US approaches to ethical trade, we focus mainly on
the grounding of institutional arrangements, influenced as they are by broader
institutional environments, in particular multi-stakeholder organisations for ethical
trade (the MSIs). In making our argument about the importance of national
institutional contexts, though, we do not want to understand their influence on
global labour standards regulation in terms of hierarchical and territorial scales of
governance that operate mainly through the powers of traditional governmental
institutions such as the nation-state. Rather, we aim instead to advance a more fluid
and dynamic conceptualisation of national-institutional contexts, recognising that they
4 Scalar regulation is a term used by Amin (2004, 224) to reflect spatial imaginaries of regulation built on
territorial units and geographical hierarchies.
496 . Hughes et al.
are materially and discursively constructed through complex sets of interactions and
practices between different organisational actors at a range of geographical levels.
Against the backdrop of theories of regulation in the world economy that rest on
notions of territory and hierarchy, Amin (2004) suggests instead that global economic
flows and networks have encouraged new heterarchical, hybrid and decentred practices
of regulation. He terms these ‘micro-worlds of regulation’, which are:
. . . mappings of regulation that transect geographies of regulation based on territorial

jurisdiction and scalar reach. They all point to another logic of regulation- heterarchical,
topological and micro-performative- that does not correspond with meta-orders of regulation,
with their emphasis on territory, state and nested hierarchy (Amin, 2004, 226).
This reconceptualisation of regulation in the global economy is helpful for our

analysis of ethical trading MSIs for two reasons. First, it recognises the role played by
global economic flows in creating new ‘micro-worlds of regulation’. This corresponds
with the understanding that retailers’ globalising supply chains have themselves sowed
the seeds for the growth of voluntary codes and MSIs. Second, while not denying the
significance of national governments and global institutions like the ILO and WTO in
the governance of global supply chains, the relational approach recently advocated by
economic geographers5 acknowledges that the role of these states and institutions
becomes decentred, as the construction and implementation of labour codes takes place
through hybrid organisational networks comprising a range of actors including
companies, NGOs, consumer groups and trade unions, as well as governments and
global regulatory institutions.
Our case study will show that influential ethical trading MSIs have been instituted
initially at the national level in the UK and USA. However, thinking relationally allows
us to show that the establishment of nationally based MSIs has been prompted by
transnational flows of capital and has been grounded through the actions and coalitions
of a variety of stakeholder groups that extend the governance of labour standards
beyond the reach of traditional scalar regulation. Moreover, new political initiatives to
connect these national-level MSIs through transnational forms of multi-stakeholder
alliance demonstrate the ever-changing regulatory landscape of which these organisa-
tional networks form a part. National-institutional contexts are, therefore, viewed
through this conceptual lens as active and dynamic contexts. This is not to deny their
significance, but rather to emphasise their changing role in the particular politics of
connection that constitute the ethical trading movement.
3. Ethical trade and the strategic significance of national MSIs:

a UK–US comparison
3.1. The case of the UK
3.1.1. Campaigning and the emergence of the Ethical Trading Initiative
From the mid-1990s onwards, ethical trading has risen in profile through both critical
media attention and organisational campaigning by civil society organisations
5 ‘Concerned primarily with the ways in which socio-spatial relations of actors are intertwined with broader
structures and processes of economic change at various geographical scales’ (Yeung, 2005, 37).
(Freidberg, 2004). Media reports in the late 1990s focussed on the poor working
conditions of overseas labourers supplying own-brand products to the UK supermarket
chains and clothing retailers in particular. Articles appeared in broadsheets, high-
lighting poor environmental and working conditions at sites of export production
(for example, Durham, 1996; Bowcott, 1997; Abrams, 1999; Monks, 1999). Radio and
television documentaries, particularly the well-known Mange Tout film, were also part
of the process (Hughes, 2001a). At the same time, direct pressure was exerted on UK
food and clothing retail corporations by NGO campaigns. In the mid-1990s, Christian
Aid’s focus on supermarkets’ global sourcing practices (Orton and Madden, 1996) and
CAFOD’s Fashion Victims campaign against the high street clothing retailers
represented two key examples. The Labour Behind the Label group- a UK-based
coalition of labour unions and activists united in their solidarity with garment workers
in the global South and affiliated with the European-wide Clean Clothes Campaign-
also focussed on exploitation in the global production of clothing with reference to UK
fashion retailers and supermarkets. Supermarkets targeted in these campaigns included
the leading four corporations of Tesco, Sainsbury, Safeway (since taken over by
Morrisons) and Asda (since taken over by Wal-Mart). High street retailers targeted
included Marks and Spencer, Next, Debenhams and the Aracadia brands of Topshop,
Top Man, Dorothy Perkins, Burton, Miss Selfridge, Evans and Wallis, since acquired
by Philip Green.
The Ethical Trading Initiative (ETI) has its origins in this NGO campaigning in the
mid-1990s, along with decisions made by many UK retailers to respond to the criticism
by acting collectively and in collaboration with willing NGOs and trade unions. There
was a push by NGOs and trade unions to institutionalise recommendations for socially
responsible trade. As a result, the Monitoring and Verification Working Group was set
up, including representatives from the Trades Union Congress (TUC), the International
Textile, Garment and Leather Workers’ Federation (ITGLWF), the International
Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU), Oxfam, CAFOD, Save The Children,
the World Development Movement and the New Economics Foundation. Co-operation
with the group’s recommendations was gained from high-profile retailers, including
Sainsbury and the high street retailer, Littlewoods. The idea of establishing a more
formal tripartite alliance of companies, NGOs and trade unions, in order to develop
ethical trade collaboratively, was then taken to the Department for International
Development (DfID) of the UK government, which endorsed the initiative, not least
because it epitomised the ‘third-way’ politics associated with its then new Prime
Minister Tony Blair. The ETI was formally established in 1997 and now represents one
of the largest and most strategically significant civil initiatives of its kind in Europe. Its
endorsement and sponsorship by the DfID and its base location in London roots the
organisation in national political structures. However, its origins in the political work of
various UK-based NGOs and trade unions with links to overseas civil society
organisations at sites of export production also demonstrate the rooting of the ETI in
transnational networks and negotiations.
Since the establishment of the ETI, journalists and campaigning groups have
continued their focus on retailers’ supply chains, with a developing critical spotlight on
retailers’ ethical trading programmes themselves. Television documentaries have
continued with, for example, BBC Panorama and Real Story programmes in 2000
and 2005 examining retailers’ labour codes in global supply chains for clothing and
horticulture, respectively. Newspaper reports have also maintained their critical focus
498 . Hughes et al.
on supermarkets and high street clothing retailers with respect to their supply chain
management (Pratley and Finch, 2005; Mathieson, 2006; Mathieson and Aglionby,
2006a, 2006b).6 And, despite the establishment of the ETI, campaigns aimed at retailers
have continued, exemplified by Action Aid’s Rotten Fruit report (Wijeratna, 2005)
illustrating how workers on South African fruit farms supplying Tesco are being
exploited despite the retailer’s claims to be trading responsibly, and Oxfam’s Trading
Away Our Rights (Raworth, 2004), which focuses the debate on the power and
purchasing practices of retailers.
3.1.2. The structure and governance of the ETI

The ETI, as the only significant MSI based in the UK, is at the time of writing made up
of 37 corporate members, 15 NGOs and representatives from four international trade
unions.7 It has a permanent secretariat based in London and has selected
representatives from the UK government’s Department for International
Development, trade unions, NGOs and corporations sitting on its Board. The
remainder of its ordinary members constitute four different caucuses: general
merchandising, food, NGOs and trade unions. The majority of the corporate members
are retailers, though some are manufacturers of large brands, and most of these
companies operate in the food and clothing sectors, reflecting the focus of the
campaigns and media attention. Significantly, the top three supermarket chains—
Tesco, Sainsbury and Asda/Wal-Mart—which together account for over 50% of all
grocery sales in the UK (Mintel, 2005)—are ETI members. And, four of the leading five
UK clothing retailers in terms of market share—Marks and Spencer, Next, Debenhams
and Asda/Wal-Mart (Verdict, 2006)—are members of the organisation. While there are
several large UK food and clothing retailers not signed up as members, the list above
nonetheless shows how influential the ETI is in terms of its membership. Another key
point to draw out is the central participation of trade unions, which reflects the
acknowledged position of unions in UK (and more broadly, European) modes of
industrial organisation. As we will show in the case of the USA subsequently, the place
of trade unions is by no means guaranteed in MSIs for ethical trade. This key difference
concerning the contrasting composition of MSIs in the UK and USA supports
Christopherson and Lillie’s (2005) point about the significance of national industrial
relations systems in retailers’ home countries to the strategies they adopt in their
approaches to ethical trade.
Lying at the heart of the ETI is the base code of conduct, which the organisation
encourages all corporate members to use in the implementation of responsible business
standards in the context of their (mainly) own-brand supply chains. This base code
consists of nine provisions that build directly on core ILO Conventions. These
provisions, exclusively concerning labour standards, are as follows: (i) employment
is freely chosen; (ii) freedom of association and the right to collective bargaining
are respected; (iii) working conditions are safe and hygienic; (iv) child labour
should not be used; (v) living wages are paid; (vi) working hours are not excessive;
6 Media exposés and campaigns recently have focussed on UK-based as well as overseas food suppliers to
supermarket chains, attending to the issues of migrant workers and gangmasters (see, for example, Vidal,
2006).
7 http://www.ethicaltrade.org/Z/abteti/who/memb/list.shtml#tu [Accessed 2 August 2006].
(vii) no discrimination is practised; (viii) regular employment is provided; (ix) no harsh

or inhumane treatment is allowed (ETI, 2000). This code illustrates the continuing
involvement of the ILO in working towards the regulation of global labour standards
(Murray, 2002), but lends support to Amin’s (2004) thesis on the decentring of the
regulatory process, as the core conventions become implemented through transnational
trading networks and initiatives like the ETI.
3.1.3. ETI approaches to ethical trade: research, learning and collaborative

development
In setting up our comparison of UK and US MSIs, there are two fundamental aspects
of the ETI’s approach to draw out. The first concerns its emphasis on collaborative
learning and the development of ‘best practice’, and the second concerns the lack of any
strict demands for transparency and enforcement of the code on the part of its retail
members. Dealing with the issue of learning first, much of the ETI’s initial work
following the finalisation of its base code was on the development of methodologies for
its implementation. This mainly centred on developing strategies and methods for the
social and ethical auditing of retailers’ supply chains, and involved debate about the
organisations best positioned to conduct these audits (retailers, private companies,
NGOs or trade unions). However, as scepticism has mounted on the value of auditing in
bringing about improved labour standards (O’Rourke, 2002), ETI members have
focussed increasingly on developing best practice in ethical trading beyond the
monitoring process, incorporating remediation work with suppliers and giving workers
a stronger voice in the process of code implementation (personal interviews). Indeed,
the core activities of the ETI all pivot around a broad suite of learning and knowledge-
based activities, including conferences, seminars, roundtable discussions, experimental
projects and training courses. Moreover, as part of its research-based activities, the
effectiveness of the ETI’s base code in improving labour conditions has been
independently evaluated through an impact assessment conducted by the UK’s
Institute of Development Studies (Barrientos and Smith, 2006). The report from this
assessment shows that while working conditions have improved in the areas of health
and safety as a result of code implementation, there is still significant progress to be
made on issues such as freedom of association and discrimination. Overall, the ETI
concentrates on experimental learning projects and the pursuit of best practice ethical
trade through research rather than the accreditation of a standard or the policing of
supply relationships. As the Director of the ETI acknowledges:
This is not an exact science. Membership is not a badge. It doesn’t mean that these companies
are all great. Actually what it probably means is some of them are doing good and bad things
all the time, and we try and identify the good and talk about the good.
Interview, 12 September 2005
One of the main advantages of this developmental approach to ethical trade,

acknowledged by trade union and NGO representatives in the ETI, is that companies
are comfortable about being involved in an organisation that effectively creates a ‘safe
space’ for learning. However, weaknesses of the approach are identified by interviewees
as relating to the lack of strict demands made on its members by the ETI in terms of
code compliance and enforcement. One trade union representative of the ETI suggested
500 . Hughes et al.
that its focus on learning represents organisational strength and weakness simulta-
neously, with a risk that the institution simply becomes a ‘talk shop’ (interview,
14 November 2005). The following view from an NGO representative in the ETI
expresses similar concerns:
Although the idea of learning organisations is a helpful one and I think it has created an
atmosphere of trust within ETI, at the same time sometimes it’s possible for companies to just
say, ‘Well, we are participating’. And you do have to keep thinking, well what are the
outcomes? What has changed as a result? And there is quite a difference in terms of the
corporate members, the extent to which they are investing in changing practices.
Interview, 05 October 2005
The ETI is regarded by many practitioners as a successful civil initiative for ethical
trade, with a focus on developmental approaches supported by both the UK
government’s Department for International Development and proactive NGO
members. However, while corporate members are required to produce annual reports
to the ETI on the progress they have made with code implementation in their supply
chains, there are no requirements for the public disclosure of inspection results. This
arguably stems from the fact that campaigning in the UK has mainly been conducted by
NGO and trade union activists rather than ordinary consumers themselves, in contrast
to the USA where campus-based consumers have been involved in direct protests,
discussed subsequently. In the UK, calls for public disclosure of social auditing results
are notable for their absence, and this has engendered more of a culture of learning than
one of rigid compliance in the ETI.
3.2. The case of the USA

3.2.1. Campaigning and the emergence of US MSIs
The story of the anti-sweatshop movement in the USA and the way it became so
symbolic of resistance to neoliberalism is well documented. As in the UK, there was an
explosion in the US media of exposés on labour conditions in global supply chains
during the mid to late 1990s, with Klein (2000, 327) noting that between 1995 and 1996,
‘North Americans couldn’t turn on their televisions without hearing shameful stories
about the exploitative labor practices behind the most popular, mass-marketed
labels . . .’. Articles on the subject appeared frequently in newspapers such as the
New York Times and the Wall Street Journal, as well as popular magazines. Retailers
and brand manufacturers operating in the apparel and toy sectors were the main targets
of criticism, including Gap Inc., Nike, Wal-Mart, Target, Sears and Nordstrom
(Klein, 2000). Most famously, in May 1996 Charles Kernaghan of the National Labor
Committee (NLC) made talk show host, Kathie Lee Gifford, cry on US primetime
television when he revealed that child labourers in Honduras and sweatshop workers in
New York were involved in the production of her sportswear range sold in Wal-Mart
stores (Adams, 2002; Featherstone and USAS, 2002; Jenkins, 2002).
At the same time, direct protests and campaigns against clothing brands and retailers
were being launched by NGOs, unions, consumer organisations and student groups.
While these began in the early 1990s with the anti-sweatshop work of organisations like
the NLC and had their roots in earlier collective organisation of garment industry
workers in the global South (Featherstone and USAS, 2002), the mid-1990s represented
a pivotal point in the development of a significant US-based anti-sweatshop movement.

During this time, Sweatshop Watch formed in California, many Student Labor Action
Coalitions formed at universities across the USA, and the Union of Needletrades,
Industrial and Textile Employees (UNITE) founded the Stop Sweatshops Campaign
with the National Consumers League (NCL) (Hartwick, 2000; Johns and Vural, 2000;
Featherstone and USAS, 2002).
The engines of this political activism were located at sites of retail and consumption
in the USA rather than at sites of production, which Johns and Vural (2000) argue is a
corollary of the overarching ‘consumerist turn’ in the global economy beginning in the
late twentieth century. However, emphasising the point that this consumer-based
activism was fuelled by political connections made with workers in the global South,
Cravey (2004, 207) talks about ‘an increasingly complex geography of activist
connections’ and Silvey (2004) refers to the ‘transnational alliances’ (191) and
‘translocal political agendas’ (193) that have characterised the US anti-sweatshop
movement. These observations support the view that the US anti-sweatshop movement
was produced through networked relations between individuals and groups which
cross-cut spatial scales. Nonetheless, Russell (2004) highlights the US base of the anti-
sweatshop movement and emphasises the way in which it has been so powerfully
motivated by notions of consumer sovereignty.
The embeddedness of the anti-sweatshop movement in national political, as well as
cultural, processes is illustrated by the establishment of US MSIs in the mid-1990s.
In 1996, concerned that the campaigns and publicity on sweatshops would threaten its
continued drive for free trade, the Clinton Administration initiated the Apparel
Industry Partnership (AIP)—a multi-stakeholder group of companies, unions, human
rights organisations and consumer groups—to reach consensus on the monitoring of
labour conditions in global supply chains (Adams, 2002; Featherstone and USAS, 2002;
Jenkins, 2002). In 1998, the Fair Labor Association (FLA) was formed from the AIP,
and arguably remains the most strategically significant MSI for ethical trade in the
USA. However, several groups left the organisation due to fundamental disagreement
over issues of a ‘living wage’ clause in the code of conduct and methods used to conduct
independent monitoring of supply chains. Most significantly, it was trade union
representatives from UNITE, along with the Interfaith Centre for Corporate
Responsibility, who led the walkout from the FLA.
At the same time, campus-based protests against sweatshops, particularly those
targeting college sportswear brands including Nike, were gathering momentum.
In 1998, with the support of UNITE, United Students Against Sweatshops (USAS)
was established (Featherstone, 2004), which became increasingly opposed to the FLA
and its apparent domination by corporate members such as Liz Claiborne, Nike and
Reebok. In due course this opposition led to the formation of the Worker Rights
Consortium (WRC), a MSI focussed on the supply chains for college clothing brands.
The WRC continues to represent an arguably more radical alternative to the FLA in the
USA, illustrating a more fractured landscape of ethical trading MSIs in the USA than
the UK.
As in the UK, the subject of sweatshops in connection with retailers’ supply chains
continues to feature in the US media (for example, Goodman and Pan, 2004; Liedtke,
2004; Nocera, 2005; Greenhouse and Barbaro, 2006). The US retailers targeted in these
reports include Wal-Mart, JC Penney, Sears, Target and Gap Inc. Documentaries also
have been released by independent media organisations in the USA, exemplified by
502 . Hughes et al.
Stolen Childhoods (Morris, 2005) and Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Price.
While student activism on the theme of sweatshops continues through USAS, it is now
mainly channelled into the ongoing programmes of the WRC such as recent sweat-free
campus campaigns. Focus on the retail sector has developed, though, through
the emergence in 2005 of two groups targeting Wal-Mart—Wake-up Wal-Mart and
Wal-Mart Watch—though these organisations address a broader range of issues
relating to Wal-Mart’s domination of the US market, rather than purely supply chain
exploitation.
In contrast to the UK, US-based campaigning has a significant legal dimension, with
groups like Human Rights First and the International Labor Rights Fund both being
run by lawyers and experimenting with legal frameworks, such as the Alien Tort Claims
Act, which hold corporations accountable for actions affecting foreign workers.
Another significant UK–US contrast concerns the lack of attention paid by the US
media and campaigning groups to the global supply chains of supermarkets (with the
exception of the mass-merchandiser, Wal-Mart). It has been suggested by several
interviewees that this stems from the absence of prominent national supermarket
chains/brands in the USA and the weak position (compared to the UK) of US super-
market own-brand products (Hughes, 1996; M. Sinclair, personal communication),
though this situation is changing with the increasing concentration of capital in US
food retailing (Wrigley, 2002). While there have been campaigns focussed on labour
rights within the US agricultural industry, including the work of Oxfam America
(Mesbah, 2004) and the Coalition of Immokalee Workers (Imig, 2005), these
movements have tended to concentrate on agricultural supplies to fast food chains.
Campaigns and media reports concerned with issues of labour standards in the global
supply chains of US supermarket chains are notable for their absence, and this stands in
marked contrast to the situation in the UK with implications for the structure and
scope of US MSIs.
3.2.2. The structure and governance of US MSIs

The FLA is arguably the most strategically significant MSI for ethical trade in the USA
on account of its more broad-reaching corporate membership and the expansive range
of global supply chains it therefore covers. However, it differs from the UK’s ETI in
terms of structure and membership. There has been a notable absence of trade union
representatives since UNITE left the organisation in the late 1990s, reflecting the far
weaker position of unions in the USA. In addition, and unlike the ETI with its
significant supermarket membership, the sectors covered are limited to the apparel
industry. Like the ETI, though, the FLA has a permanent secretariat based mainly in
Washington DC and a Board of Directors consisting of six corporate members, six
NGOs and three university representatives. At the time of writing in 2006, it has twenty
corporate members between them sourcing from over 3500 factories in 76 different
countries and with sales of $30 billion.8 Amongst these are retailers such as Nordstrom
and retailer/multi-brand companies such as Liz Claiborne. However, the vast majority
are clothing and sportswear brands like Adidas and Nike that have a less significant
presence in retailing. Many US clothing retailers targeted by campaigning and media
8 http://www.fairlabor.org/all/companies/index.html [Accessed 9 August 2006].

reports, such as Wal-Mart, JC Penney, Sears and Target, appear to be pursuing global
labour standards strategies outside MSI structures in the USA, which represents
another important contrast with the UK context. Gap Inc., through its involvement in
Social Accountability International (SAI) and the UK’s ETI, is one of the few
US retailers engaging with MSIs. The formal multi-stakeholder approach to ethical
trade therefore appears to be more directly influential with retailers in the UK than it is
in the USA.
The FLA code of conduct is very similar to that of the ETI, including clauses relating
to: forced labour, child labour, harassment of workers, non-discrimination, health and
safety, freedom of association and collective bargaining, wages and benefits, hours of
work and overtime compensation.9 There is not space to detail the precise clauses of the
FLA code here. For a comprehensive comparison of different MSI codes of labour
conduct, see SGS (2005). However, a key point to make is that the FLA code does not
refer to a ‘living wage’ in the same way as other MSIs, which relates to the absence of
unions on its Board. Rather, it states that employers should pay as a minimum the legal
or prevailing industry wage required by local law in the country in which the supplier is
based. This absence of a living wage in the FLA code remains a target of criticism
by NGOs, unions and other MSIs in the USA (personal interviews). The FLA is
also less specific than the WRC in terms of its standards concerning overtime work
(Jenkins, 2002).
The WRC differs from the FLA, and also the UK’s ETI, predominantly because it is
limited to supply chains for clothing bearing college and university names. It does not
include mainstream retail members. By 2006, there were 157 colleges and universities
affiliated to the WRC, and the focus on college apparel is a direct result of the strength
of the campus-based anti-sweatshop movement in the USA. The organisation has
permanent staff based in Washington DC and a Governing Board comprising five
representatives of its university caucus, five from USAS (who continue to be supported
by UNITE-HERE) and five members of its Advisory Council made up of independent
labour rights experts.10 Its model code of conduct is very similar to the codes used by
the ETI and FLA, though it specifies and defines a ‘living wage’11 and has an additional
section devoted to women’s labour rights (Jenkins, 2002).
The Worldwide Responsible Apparel Production (WRAP) and Social Accountability
International (SAI) are other US ethical trading organisations worthy of mention.
WRAP is essentially a business association code rather than a MSI (Jenkins, 2002;
O’Rourke, 2002) and therefore receives less attention here. Its code of conduct reflects
its dominant private sector membership, omitting a detailed clause on a living wage for
example. By contrast, SAI represents a much stronger MSI with a history of close
relations with the ETI, FLA and WRC. As well as its involvement in accrediting and
training social auditors, it promotes a strict workplace standard in the form of its SA
9 http://www.fairlabor.org/code/index.html [Accessed 9 August 2006].

10 http://www.workersrights.org/govern.asp [Accessed 9 August 2006].
11 The WRC defines a ‘living wage’ as ‘a ‘‘take home’’ or ‘‘net’’ wage, earned during a country’s legal
maximum work week, but not more than 48 hours. A living wage provides for the basic needs (housing,
energy, nutrition, clothing, health care, education, potable water, childcare, transportation and savings)
of an average family unit of employees in the garment manufacturing employment sector of the country
divided by the average number of adult wage earners in the family unit of employees in the garment
manufacturing employment sector of the country’ (http://www.workersrights.org/coc.asp) [Accessed
9 August 2006].
504 . Hughes et al.
8000 code which is arguably more detailed than that of any other MSI and which works
progressively with a ‘basic needs’ wage.12 The organisation was set up in 1997 and has a
Board including two NGO representatives, one lawyer and three companies. It also has
a trade union presence, though significantly these are European-based unions.
Although based in the USA, SAI does not quite fit with the model of a national-
level MSI as it has always had European as well as US companies as signed-up
members. It also differs from other US MSIs in terms of its sectoral scope,
incorporating European food in addition to clothing companies. However, its influence
on US retailers and brands is limited. Of the leading food and clothing retailers in the
USA, only Gap Inc. is involved in the organisation and working with SA8000.
3.2.3. US approaches to ethical trade through MSIs: transparency,

disclosure and certification
While there are clear similarities between UK and US MSIs in terms of their codes, with
the exception of the living wage clause, there are more notable contrasts with respect to
implementation strategies and the philosophies that underpin them. The FLA is
significantly more directive than the ETI in terms of laying down guidelines with respect
to code implementation for its corporate members. It requires that companies establish
internal systems for monitoring their suppliers against the FLA code, but it also
operates independent external monitoring through FLA-accredited private auditors.
All corporate members of the FLA have to allow these external monitors to audit their
suppliers through unannounced visits and a clear philosophy of transparency is
advanced through FLA programmes. As the Executive Director of the FLA explained,
‘The concept of transparency is at the very heart of what we do’ (Interview, 08 March
2006). Transparency is achieved through the independent monitoring system itself and
the publication of monitoring outcomes on the FLA website. The President and CEO of
the FLA justified this approach as follows:
The ultimate test, if you like, for a company walking the walk is the fact that they don’t
know when we are going to arrive and they know that whatever we find is going to be public.
Interview with the President and CEO of the FLA, 02 December 2005
This fundamental contrast with the ETI’s approach hinges on firmer strategic
connections being made between the FLA, its members’ supply chains and the US
consumers of apparel. As the organisation asserts on its website, ‘The FLA serves as a
source of information to consumers and promotes public awareness about labour
conditions around the world through candid and transparent reporting.’13 This reflects,
in part, the notion of consumer sovereignty lying at the heart of the US anti-sweatshop
movement, and in effect enrols consumers into the auditing process as a critical
audience in a way that is absent from organised ethical trading programmes in the UK.
The ways in which auditing can be as much about ‘being seen to be audited’ as it is
about the audit outcome itself (Miller, 1998, 202) are, therefore, more apparent in US
organisational approaches than they are in the UK. However, it must be noted that the
FLA also engages in additional activities that move the organisation beyond the
12 SA8000 is essentially a certification standard focussed on factories rather than brands and retailers.
13 http://fairlabor.org/all/transparency/reports.html [Accessed 16 August 2006].
monitoring process alone, with programmes of learning on sustainability and

remediation.
The WRC, with its sole focus on factories producing apparel bearing college and
university names, has been primarily concerned with investigating worker complaints
and conducting investigations in response to these complaints. As such, this MSI has
been likened by one trade union representative to a ‘flying squad’ (personal interview).
Another key difference is that, instead of conducting monitoring through private
corporate auditors, the WRC operates its monitoring by working closely with worker
organisations and labour rights specialists at sites of production. However, like the
FLA, it advocates an approach resting on transparency, including the disclosure of
factory names, locations and monitoring results. Most recently, and connected to the
sweat-free campus campaign, the WRC have been involved in the innovative
Designated Supplier Program. The strategy for this programme is that university
logo apparel should be sourced only from factories that have been determined to have
‘affirmatively demonstrated full and consistent respect for the rights of their employees’
(USAS, 2005, 5) by adhering fully to the WRC code. The programme also suggests that,
‘University licensees pay these factories prices for their products sufficient to achieve
these standards . . . and will be expected to maintain the kind of long-term relationship
with these factories necessary to allow for a reasonable degree of financial stability and
job security’ (USAS, 2005, 5). This takes the WRC in the direction of a certification
model, with one implication emerging that it might create an enclave of best practice
within the apparel industry.
Promoting one of the strongest and most detailed workplace codes for global labour
through its SA 8000 workplace standard, SAI’s whole approach rests on strict labour
standards, the measurability of those standards and detailed systems of certification
used to monitor them. SAI’s comprehensive programmes for the training and
accreditation of auditors also reflect this compliance-monitoring approach. WRAP,
as a business association rather than a MSI, is most influential with manufacturers’
associations (Merk, 2005) and operates a code and implementation strategy that is
weaker than those used by other US MSIs (Jenkins, 2002). It proposes an approach
combining factory self-assessment and independent monitoring by accredited private
auditing companies in order to certify a supplier, but does not disclose factory names,
locations or monitoring outcomes. This differs dramatically from the prevailing
philosophies of transparency and disclosure that so powerfully shape the approaches to
monitoring advanced by the other leading US initiatives and which contrast so
markedly with approaches advocated in the UK.
4. Transnational experimentations in ethical trading approaches:

towards UK–US institutional convergence?
While ethical trading MSIs on both sides of the Atlantic have been shown to be deeply
embedded in national contexts of campaigning and politics at sites of retail and
consumption, their focus on global sourcing and the influence of overseas organisations
at sites of production implies that they are all far from hermetically sealed organisations
confined to the national scale. In fact, their programmes of code development and their
approaches to code implementation are shot through with the kinds of ‘trans-territorial
presences’ that Amin (2004, 224) suggests are characteristic of new, networked forms
of regulation in the global economy. There are many examples of the ways in which
506 . Hughes et al.
‘trans-territorial presences’ shape, and are themselves shaped by, national-institutional

contexts. The in-house corporate strategies for ethical trade developed by retail TNCs
like Wal-Mart, Gap Inc. and Tesco, for example, represent cross-border channels of
learning that are influenced by many different ethical trading agendas including those
of national MSIs in the different countries in which they operate. In the case of
campaigning, most NGOs who are MSI members also operate through broad-reaching,
transnational civil society networks that shape the agendas they bring to MSI
negotiating tables. These examples, amongst others, do not deny the importance of
nationally based MSIs. Rather, they are illustrative of the trans-scalar production of
MSIs and national-institutional contexts that are fluid and mutable. The case we use to
discuss this geographical dynamism further concerns a recent transnational project of
experimental learning involving UK and US MSIs.
The Joint Initiative on Corporate Accountability and Workers Rights, known as
JO-IN, began in 2003 as a transnational initiative to combat the proliferation of labour
codes in the global economy and to reduce the duplication of organisational efforts on
ethical trade. Its strategy is firmly based on the use of the multi-stakeholder approach to
ethical trade, and its membership is made up of six MSIs- the ETI, FLA, WRC and
SAI, as well as the Dutch-based Fair Wear Foundation (FWF) and the Clean Clothes
Campaign (CCC). WRAP is not involved in the initiative, given its distance from a
genuine multi-stakeholder approach. JO-IN has been funded by the European
Commission and the US State Department, as well as by private members of
participating organisations. Its direction has benefited from an independent Chair and
its committee, consisting of representatives of the six member MSIs, meets up to three
times a year. The organisation quotes its central objectives as being: ‘(i) to maximise the
effectiveness and impact of multi-stakeholder approaches to the implementation and
enforcement of codes of conduct by ensuring that resources are directed as efficiently as
possible to improving the lives of workers and their families; (ii) to explore possibilities
for closer co-operation between the organisations; and (iii) to share learning on the
manner in which voluntary codes of labour practice contribute to better workplace
conditions in global supply chains’.14
Rather than being representative of complete institutional convergence and the
unproblematic pursuit of one common code of conduct for global labour standards, the
activities of the Joint Initiative illustrate how such transnational learning networks are
shaped by, and subsequently influence, the philosophies and approaches of its
constituent, nationally based member organisations. The most obvious example of
this is the influence of the ETI’s philosophy of inter-organisational learning in the
development of good practice, articulated within JO-IN’s third objective listed earlier
and applied through its collaborative pilot project with Turkish garment suppliers.
What this illustrates is the dominant role played by the ETI in shaping the JO-IN
agenda. At the time of writing, eight brands and retailers who are members of different
participating MSIs are involved in the Turkish pilot project, including Gap Inc.,
Adidas, Puma, Marks and Spencer and Nike. The aim is for the MSIs to agree a
common code between them and then to work towards agreeing best practice for
implementing that code by pooling the different experiences and viewpoints of the MSIs
involved. The priority of the project is to focus on elements of the code that are
14 http://www.jo-in.org/about.html [Accessed 21 August 2006].

particularly pertinent to garment suppliers and on which various MSIs have

traditionally disagreed. These elements centre on freedom of association and the
right to collective bargaining, wages and overtime hours. Both the JO-IN Chair and the
Director of ETI emphasise that the subsequent development of a common methodology
for code implementation is not simply about comparing existing MSI approaches, but
about agreeing common guidelines for implementation and trialling those guidelines.
Highlighting the centrality of collective learning to this process, the President of SAI
explained that, ‘We’re agreeing joint guidance and the guidance is really benefiting from
best practice of all of us’ (interview, 24 February 2006).
Unsurprisingly, there have been challenges associated with the Turkish pilot project
stemming from the different philosophies and approaches underpinning the MSI
members. First, with respect to the establishment of a common JO-IN labour code, the
President of SAI recounted how the initiative went through eighteen drafts before a
final version was agreed, with the clause on wages representing a particular point of
contention. This was despite the similarity between ETI, SAI, FWF and CCC codes
resulting from previous inter-organisational dialogue. As she explained, ‘The FLA does
not have a living wage in their code. We [JO-IN] have a common code now, which has a
living wage in it’ (interview, 24 February 2006). As other JO-IN members revealed,
the solution to this particular problem in practice was to construct a ‘wages ladder’ in
the JO-IN code, which incorporates a range of levels of wages standards, from the
FLA’s use of the in-country minimum wage to the more ambitious standards for living
wages and basic needs wages espoused by other MSIs. While this wages ladder appears
to represent an answer to the problem, it does not transcend individual MSI standards.
Moreover, some JO-IN members are pessimistic about the possibility of consensus
emerging from the implementation of the ladder concept in Turkey.
Another significant area of debate to emerge from the pilot project concerns the issue
of disclosure and transparency. As discussed earlier, this is a philosophy lying at the
heart of US MSIs and is, arguably, fuelled by the consumer sovereignty powering the
US anti-sweatshop movement. While the WRC calls for transparency in the JO-IN
project, incorporating the disclosure of Turkish factory names and locations and the
results of factory inspections, the brands and retailers themselves and other MSIs,
including the ETI, have reservations about this approach. This has created tensions
between the MSIs, as one anonymous commentator suggested:
The WRC can’t compromise. They can’t come down from where they are at, and these other
organisations at this point, given who their Boards are, can’t get to that transparency level.
Another challenge has been the difficulty of getting Turkish suppliers to sign up to
the project. Indeed, increased labour costs and the possible exposure of the factories of
suppliers to public scrutiny are particular concerns that must be addressed by JO-IN in
its ongoing work (interview with the Chief Executive of the WRC, 07 March 2006).
However, despite these challenges, JO-IN is continuing as a transnational experimental
project on ethical trade. As the Executive Director of the FLA noted:
I think the more interesting story is the fact that these six organisations, as different as they are,
the fact that they’re still talking to each other is really the amazing aspect of what’s happened
so far.
Interview, 08 March 2006
508 . Hughes et al.
In the case of JO-IN, the pursuit of a common standard for, and common
approach to, improving global labour standards through transnational organisational
networks is progressing through continual negotiation between nationally based
MSIs with contrasting philosophies and approaches. As a result, it is these
nationally embedded philosophies and organisational approaches that are
shaping specific pathways of transnational code development, as well as
themselves being challenged and re-shaped by such cross-border dialogue. The JO-IN
project, therefore, exemplifies the discursive construction of both national MSIs
for ethical trade and the so-called construction of a common approach to global
labour standards.
5. Conclusion: global labour standards,

national-institutional contexts and the unsettled
geographies of corporate responsibility
In this article, we have compared UK and US MSIs in order to assert the significance of
national-institutional contexts in framing corporate (including retailer) approaches to
ethical trade and global labour standards. While campaigning for responsible trading
and the development of MSIs are evident in both countries, the comparative analysis
highlights significant points of contrast between UK and US national-institutional
contexts for ethical trade. To summarise, first, there is a striking UK–US difference in
terms of the sectors targeted by the media and campaigning organisations since the
1990s. In the UK, both the clothing and food retailers have received criticism for their
global supply chain practices. In contrast, the USA has seen the vast majority of
attention directed at the clothing retailers and leading brand names in sportswear and
college apparel through the anti-sweatshop movement. Second, and related to this,
there is a clear contrast in the development of multi-stakeholder organisations between
the two countries. One dominant organisation, the Ethical Trading Initiative (the ETI),
has emerged in the UK to co-ordinate ethical trading developments on the part of
leading retailers and brand manufacturers in a variety of sectors including the food and
garment retail industries. In the USA, the establishment of multi-stakeholder
organisations has been much more fragmented and focuses exclusively on the clothing
sector as a result of the original focus of media and campaigning attention. Reflecting
the UK–US differences in institutional environments/arrangements, including national
industrial relations systems, trade unions appear to play a more central role in the UK
ethical trading movement than they do in the USA, while legal organisations are more
influential in US anti-corporate campaigning.
What we have also emphasised in our comparison is that not only have the MSIs
evolved in the context of quite distinct national campaigning and political contexts, but
also they embody contrasting strategies for, and approaches to, the implementation of
ethical codes of conduct. While the ETI advocates an approach focussed on continuous
learning and the pursuit of best practice for ethical trade based on collaborative
research, US MSIs exert far greater control over the code implementation process and
place emphasis on transparency, including the public disclosure of auditing results. This
strategy of disclosure in the USA is argued to stem from the embeddedness of US MSIs
in a national anti-sweatshop movement energised by a discourse of consumer
sovereignty. However, the strict demands regarding transparency represent one
reason why many US retailers avoid engagement with MSIs, in contrast to the UK
where the ETI provides a ‘safe space’ for many companies to learn about evolving
ethical trading approaches. With broader significance for understanding the global
economy and its governance, this contrast between the UK’s learning approach and the
US model of rigid compliance monitoring for ethical trade is mirrored in regulatory
practices for accounting standards. It has been shown, for example, that the
management of accounting standards in the UK is associated with a ‘principles-
based’ approach, while in the US a more ‘rules-based’ system has been dominant
(Schipper, 2003; Nobes, 2005).
In terms of the strengths and weaknesses of each MSI’s approach, the key asset of the
ETI’s learning-based strategy centres on the production of a safe space for corporations
to develop leading edge approaches to the implementation of ethical trading principles
in collaboration with various stakeholders. However, in the absence of rules for strict
enforcement, the wider impacts of these positive developments run the risk of being
limited. In contrast, the key strength of the US MSIs’ methodology based more on
compliance monitoring and transparency is the potentially broader extent to which
labour standards are implemented and guaranteed. The most advanced MSI in terms of
working with a comprehensive and progressive code, collaborating with stakeholders
and developing transparent monitoring programmes appears to be the Worker Rights
Consortium. In the context of the JO-IN project, the standards embodied in the WRC’s
approach present a challenge to other MSIs. The resulting tensions between MSIs as
this transnational experiment unfolds illustrate both the political significance and the
fluidity of national-level contexts and institutions in the developing ethical trading
agenda.
Ethical trade remains a central subject of inquiry for social scientists interested in
understanding the broader architectures of global supply chain governance and
transnational retail activity. As retailers are becoming increasingly responsible for
labour standards in global supply chains, understanding the strategies they use to
manage these standards is an important academic and political objective. The rising
market power of transnational retailers (Wrigley et al., 2005) implies that power and
authority in the governance of global supply chains is falling increasingly into the hands
of an elite group of globalising retailers. What is clear from this comparative analysis,
though, is that the national-institutional contexts in which these (and other national)
retailers are based continue to play a significant part in moulding their strategies for the
management of ethical trade. However, recognising the dynamism of national
institutions and organisations—the ways in which they are always shaped through
practices and interactions at a variety of spatial scales—is crucial to grasping their
significance. Taking a relational approach to understanding UK–US differences in
corporate ethical trading approaches therefore highlights the remarkably unsettled
geographies of corporate responsibility that are currently shaping the global economy.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank two anonymous referees for their very helpful comments on an
earlier draft of this article. The research was carried out as part of an ESRC research grant
(award number RES-000-23-0830), for which we are very grateful. And finally, we thank our
interviewees for their valuable participation in the study.
510 . Hughes et al.
References
Abrams, F. (1999) The global sweatshop: campaign starts to achieve results. The Independent, 1
October, 14.
Adams, R. J. (2002) Retail profitability and sweatshops: a global dilemma. Journal of Retailing
and Consumer Services, 9: 147–153.
Amin, A. (2002) Spatialities of globalisation. Environment and Planning A, 34: 385–399.
Amin, A. (2004) Regulating economic globalization. Transactions of the Institute of British
Geographers, 29: 217–233.
Barling, D., Lang, T. (2005) Trading on health: cross-continental production and
consumption tensions and the governance of international food standards. In N. Fold, and
B. Pritchard (eds) Cross-continental food chains, pp. 39–51. Abingdon and New York:
Routedge.
Barrett, H. R., Browne, A. W., Ilbery, B. W. (2004) From farm to supermarket: the trade
in fresh horticultural produce from Sub-Saharan Africa to the United Kingdom. In A. Hughes
and S. Reimer (eds) Geographies of Commodity Chains, pp. 19–38. London and New York:
Routledge.
Barrientos, S. (2000) Globalisation and ethical trade: assessing the implications for development.
Journal of International Development, 12: 559–570.
Barrientos, S. (2002) Mapping codes through the value chain: from researcher to detective.
In R. Jenkins, R. Pearson and G. Seyfang (eds) Corporate Responsibility and Labour Rights:
Codes of Conduct in the Global Economy, pp. 61–76. London and Sterling: Earthscan.
Barrientos, S., Smith, S. (2006) The ETI Code of Labour Practice: Do Workers Really Benefit?
Report on the ETI Impact Assessment 2006. Brighton: Institute of Development Studies,
University of Sussex (http://www.ethicaltrade.org/Z/lib/2006/09/impact-report/index.shtml,
Accessed 31 January 2007).
Bathelt, H., Gluckler, J. (2003) Toward a relational economic geography. Journal of Economic
Geography, 3: 117–144.
Blowfield, M. (1999) Ethical trade: a review of developments and issues. Third World Quarterly,
20: 753–770.
Bowcott, O. (1997) Children labour under ignorance: on a campaign that brands firms using child
workers. The Guardian, 4 November, 21.
Bowlby, S. R., Foord, J. (1995) Relational contracting between UK retailers and manufacturers.
International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research, 5: 333–361.
Braun, R., Gearhart, J. (2004) Who should code your conduct? Trade Union and NGO
differences in the fight for workers’ rights. Development in Practice, 14: 183–196.
Christopherson, S., Lillie, N. (2005) Neither global nor standard: corporate strategies in the new
era of labor standards. Environment and Planning A, 37: 1919–1938.
Clark, G. L., Tickell, A. (2005) Global standards. Environment and Planning A, 37: 1901–1902.
Coe, N. M. (2004) The internationalization/globalization of retailing: towards an economic-
geographical research agenda. Environment and Planning A, 36: 1571–1594.
Coe, N. M., Hess, M. (2005) The internationalization of retailing: implications for supply
network restructuring in East Asia and Eastern Europe. Journal of Economic Geography,
5: 449–474.
Cravey, A. J. (2004) Students and the anti-sweatshop movement. Antipode, 36: 203–208.
Crewe, L. (2004) Unravelling fashion’s commodity chains. In A. Hughes and S. Reimer (eds)
Geographies of Commodity Chains, pp. 195–214. London and New York: Routledge.
Crewe, L., Davenport, E. (1992) The puppet show: changing buyer-supplier relations within
clothing retailing. Transactions of the Institute of British Geography, 17: 183–197.
Dicken, P., Kelly, P., Olds, K., Yeung, H. W.-C. (2001) Chains and networks, territories and
scales: towards a relational framework for analyzing the global economy. Global Networks,
1: 89–112.
Dolan, C., Humphrey, J. (2004) Changing governance patterns in the trade in fresh vegetables
between Africa and the United Kingdom. Environment and Planning A, 36: 491–509.
Doel, C. (1996) Market development and organisational change: the case of the food industry.
In N. Wrigley and M. Lowe (eds) Retailing, Consumption and Capital: Towards the New Retail
Geography, pp. 48–67. Harlow: Longman.
Doh, J. P., Guay, T. R. (2006) Corporate social responsibility, public policy, and NGO activism
in Europe and the United States: an institutional-stakeholder perspective. Journal of
Management Studies, 43: 47–73.
Durham, M. (1996) Western tastes for prawns causes Third World misery. The Observer, 12 May,
15.
Esbenshade, J. (2004) Monitoring Sweatshops: Workers, Consumers and the Global Apparel
Industry. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Ethical Trading Initiative (2000) Getting to Work on Ethical Trading: Annual Report (Ethical
Trading Initiative, London).
Featherstone, L.USAS (2002) Students Against Sweatshops. London: Verso.
Featherstone, L. (2004) Sı́, se puede! Antipode, 36: 198–202.
Freidberg, S. (2003) Cleaning up down south: supermarkets, ethical trade and African
horticulture. Social & Cultural Geography, 4: 27–43.
Freidberg, S. (2004) The ethical complex of corporate food power. Environment and Planning D:
Society and Space, 22: 513–531.
Gereffi, G., Korzeniewicz, M. (eds) (1994) Commodity Chains and Global Capitalism. Westport,
CT: Greenwood Press.
Gereffi, G., Humphrey, J., Sturgeon, T. (2005) The governance of global value chains. Review of
International Political Economy, 12: 78–104.
Gibbon, P., Ponte, S. (2005) Trading Down: Africa, Value Chains and the Global Economy.
Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Goodman, S., Pan. (2004) Chinese Workers Pay for Wal-Mart’s Low Prices. Washington Post, 8
February, A01.
Grant, R. (1987) Manufacturer-retailer relations: the shifting balance of power. In G. Johnson
(ed.) Business Strategy and Retailing, pp. 43–58. Chichester: Wiley.
Greenhouse, S., Barbaro M. (2006) An ugly side of Free Trade: Sweatshops in Jordan. New York
Times, 3 May (available at: http://www.laborrights.org/press/Wal-Mart/jordansweatshops_
nty_050306.htm, Accessed 7 June 2006).
Grit, K. (2004) Corporate citizenship: how to strengthen the social responsibility of managers?
Journal of Business Ethics, 53: 97–106.
Hale, A. (2000) What hope for ‘ethical’ trade in the globalised garment industry? Antipode,
32: 349–356.
Hale, A., Opondo, M. (2005) Humanising the cut flower chain: confronting the realities of flower
production for workers in Kenya. Antipode, 37: 301–323.
Hartwick, E. (2000) Towards a geographical politics of consumption. Environment and
Planning A, 32: 1177–1192.
Haworth, N, Hughes, S., Williamson, R. (2005) The international labour standards regime: a case
study in global regulation. Environment and Planning A, 37: 1939–1953.
Hemphill, A. (2004) Monitoring global corporate citizenship: industry self-regulation at a
crossroads. Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 14: 81–95.
Hughes, A. (1996) Retail restructuring and the strategic significance of food retailers’ own-labels:
a UK–USA comparison. Environment and Planning A, 28: 2201–2226.
Hughes, A. (2001a) Multi-stakeholder approaches to ethical trade: towards a reorganisation of
UK retailers’ global supply chains? Journal of Economic Geography, 1: 421–437.
Hughes, A. (2001b) Global commodity networks, ethical trade and governmentality: organizing
business responsibility in the Kenyan cut flower industry. Transactions of the Institute of British
Geographers, 26: 390–406.
Hughes, A. (2005) Corporate strategy and the management of ethical trade: the case of the UK
food and clothing retailers. Environment and Planning A, 37: 1145–1163.
Imig, J. (2005) Immokalee: From Slavery to Freedom Pan Left Productions. http://www.ciw-
online.org/media.html (Accessed 6 February 2006).
Jenkins, R. (2002) The political economy of codes of conduct. In R. Jenkins, R. Pearson and
G. Seyfang (eds) Corporate Responsibility and Labour Rights: Codes of Conduct in the Global
Economy, pp. 13–30. London and Sterling: Earthscan.
Jenkins, R., Pearson, R., Seyfang, G. (2002) Introduction. In R. Jenkins, R. Pearson and
G. Seyfang (eds) Corporate Responsibility and Labour Rights: Codes of Conduct in the Global
Economy, pp. 1–10. London and Sterling: Earthscan.
512 . Hughes et al.
Johns, R., Vural, L. (2000) Class, geography, and the consumerist turn: UNITE and the Stop
Sweatshops campaign. Environment and Planning A, 32: 1193–1213.
Klein, N. (2000) No Logo. London: HarperCollins.
Kritzinger, A., Barrientos, S., Roussouw, H. (2004) Global production and flexible employment
in South African horticulture: experiences of contract workers in fruit exports. Sociologia
Ruralis, 44: 17–39.
Le Heron, R. (2003) Creating food futures: reflections on food governance issues in New
Zealand’s agri-food sector. Journal of Rural Studies, 19: 111–125.
Liedtke, M. (2004) Gap acknowledges labor violations. Washington Post, 13 May, E06.
Lipschutz, R. (2004) Sweating it out: NGO campaigns and trade union empowerment.
Development in Practice, 14: 197–209.
Marsden, T., Wrigley, N. (1995) Regulation, retailing, and consumption. Environment and
Planning A, 27: 1899–1912.
Martin, R. (2000) Institutional approaches in economic geography. In E. Sheppard and
T. J. Barnes (eds) A Companion to Economic Geography, pp. 77–94. Oxford: Blackwell.
Mather, C. (2004) Codes of conduct/retailer buying practices and farm labour in South Africa’s
wine and deciduous fruit export chains. International Development Planning Review,
26: 477–493.
Mathiason, N. (2006) Green savaged over Arcadia’s ethical standards. The Observer, 5 March, 2.
Mathiason, N., Aglionby, J. (2006a) The true cost of cheap clothing. The Observer, 23 April, 4.
Mathiason, N., Aglionby, J. (2006b) Exposed: life at factory that supplies our fashion stores.
The Observer, 23 April, 1.
Matten, D., Crane, A., Chapple, W. (2003) Behind the mask: revealing the true face of corporate
citizenship. Journal of Business Ethics, 45: 109–120.
McClintock, B. (1999) The multinational corporation and social justice: experiments in
supranational governance. Review of Social Economy, 57: 507–522.
McIntosh, M., Leipziger, D., Jones, K., Coleman, G. (1998) Corporate Citizenship: Successful
Strategies for Responsible Companies. London: Pitman Publishing.
Merk, J. (2005) The private regulation of labour standards: the case of the apparel and footwear
industries. Paper presented at workshop on Private Governance at ECPR Joint Sessions,
Granada, Spain, 14–19 April 2005.
Mesbah, D. E. A. (2004) Like Machines in the Fields: Workers without Rights in American
Agriculture. Boston: Oxfam America.
Miller, D. (1998) Conclusion: a theory of virtualism. In J. G. Carrier and D. Miller (eds)
Virtualism: A New Political Economy, pp. 187–215. Oxford, New York: Berg.
Mintel (2005) Food Retailing- UK- November 2005. London: Mintel International Group.
Monks, J. (1999) Sweatshop workers. The Independent, 27 September, 2.
Morris, L. (2005) Stolen Childhoods. Martha’s Vineyard, MA: Galen Films.
Murray, J. (2002) Labour rights/corporate responsibilities: the role of ILO labour standards.
In R. Jenkins, R. Pearson and G. Seyfang (eds) Corporate Responsibility and Labour Rights:
Codes of Conduct in the Global Economy, pp. 31–42. London and Sterling, VA: Earthscan.
Mutersbaugh, T. (2002) The number is the beast: a political economy of organic-coffee
certification and producer unionism. Environment and Planning A, 34: 1165–1184.
Mutersbaugh, T., Klooster, D., Renard, M.-C., Taylor, P. (2005) Certifying rural spaces: quality-
certified products and rural governance. Journal of Rural Studies, 21: 381–388.
Nobes, C. W. (2005) Rules-based standards and the lack of principles in accounting. Accounting
Horizons, 19: 25–34.
Nocera, J. (2005) Our Love-Hate Relationship with Wal-Mart. New York Times, 5 November, 3.
Oliverio, M., Simmons, A. (2002) Who’s minding the store? Global civil society and corporate
responsibility. In M. Glasius, M. Kaldor and H. Anheier (eds) Global Civil Society, pp. 77–107.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
O’Rourke, D. (2002) Monitoring the monitors: a critique of third-party labour monitoring.
In R. Jenkins, R. Pearson and G. Seyfang (eds) Corporate Responsibility and
Labour Rights: Codes of Conduct in the Global Economy, pp. 196–208. London and Sterling:
Earthscan.
O’Rourke, D. (2003) Outsourcing regulation: analyzing nongovernmental systems of labor
standards and monitoring. Policy Studies Journal, 31: 1–29.
Orton, L., Madden, P. (1996) The Global Supermarket: Britain’s Biggest Shops and Food from the
Third World. London: Christian Aid.
Pearson, R., Seyfang, G. (2001) New Hope or False Dawn? Voluntary Codes of Conduct, labour
regulation and social policy in a globalizing world. Global Social Policy, 1: 49–78.
Pratley, N., Finch, J. (2005) Shop tactics. The Guardian, 6 January, 2–3.
Raworth, K. (2004) Trading Away Our Rights: Women Working in Global Supply Chains. Oxford:
Oxfam International.
Raynolds, L. T. (2000) Re-embedding global agriculture: the international organic and fair trade
movements. Agriculture and Human Values, 17: 297–309.
Reardon, T., Timmer, C. P., Barrett, C. B., Berdegue, J. (2003) The rise of supermarkets in
Africa, Asia, and Latin America. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 85: 1140–1146.
Renard, M.-C. (2003) Fair trade: quality, market and conventions. Journal of Rural Studies,
19: 87–96.
Renard, M.-C. (2005) Quality certification, regulation and power in fair trade. Journal of Rural
Studies, 21: 419–431.
Russell, J. (2004) Locating the publicity of US anti-sweatshop activism. Antipode, 36: 217–221.
Sadler, D. (2004) Anti-corporate campaigning and corporate ‘‘social’’ responsibility: towards
alternative spaces of citizenship? Antipode, 36: 851–870.
Schipper, K. (2003) Principles-based accounting standards. Accounting Horizons, 17: 61–72.
SGS (2005) The Route to Social Compliance, SGS.
Silvey, R. (2004) A wrench in the global works: anti-sweatshop activism on campus. Antipode,
36: 191–197.
Smith, S., Barrientos, S. (2005) Fair trade and ethical trade: are there moves towards
convergence? Sustainable Development, 13: 190–198.
USAS (2005) Designated Suppliers Program. Washington DC: United Students Against
Sweatshops.
Valor, C. (2005) Corporate social responsibility and corporate citizenship: towards corporate
accountability. Business & Society Review, 110: 191–212.
Verdict (2006) UK Womenswear Retailers. London: Verdict.
Vidal, J. (2006) For England’s army of migrant workers, it’s not all strawberries and cream.
The Guardian, 5 June, 3.
Wijeratna, A. (2005) Rotten Fruit: Tesco Profits as Women Pay a Huge Price. London: Action
Aid.
Wrigley, N. (2000) The globalization of retail capital. In G. Clark, M. S. Gertler and
P. P. Feldman (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Economic Geography, pp. 292–313. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Wrigley, N. (2002) Transforming the corporate landscape of US food retailing: market power,
financial re-engineering and regulation. Tidjschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie,
93: 62–82.
Wrigley, N., Coe, N. M., Currah, A. D. (2005) Globalizing retail: conceptualizing the
distribution-based TNC. Progress in Human Geography, 29: 437–457.
Yeung, H. W.-C. (2005) Rethinking relational economic geography. Transactions of the Institute
of British Geographers, 30: 37–51.

Hughes

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Hughes

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Economic Geography 7 (2007) pp. 491–513 doi:10.

Organisational geographies of corporate

Keywords: ethical trade, retailers, corporate responsibility, multi-stakeholder organisations

2. Retailer-driven global supply chains, geographies of corporate

2.2. Geographies of corporate responsibility and the governance

2.3 Understanding the significance of national-institutional contexts: beyond

. . . mappings of regulation that transect geographies of regulation based on territorial

This reconceptualisation of regulation in the global economy is helpful for our

3. Ethical trade and the strategic significance of national MSIs:

3.1.2. The structure and governance of the ETI

(vii) no discrimination is practised; (viii) regular employment is provided; (ix) no harsh

3.1.3. ETI approaches to ethical trade: research, learning and collaborative

One of the main advantages of this developmental approach to ethical trade,

3.2. The case of the USA

a pivotal point in the development of a significant US-based anti-sweatshop movement.

3.2.2. The structure and governance of US MSIs

8 http://www.fairlabor.org/all/companies/index.html [Accessed 9 August 2006].

9 http://www.fairlabor.org/code/index.html [Accessed 9 August 2006].

3.2.3. US approaches to ethical trade through MSIs: transparency,

monitoring process alone, with programmes of learning on sustainability and

4. Transnational experimentations in ethical trading approaches:

‘trans-territorial presences’ shape, and are themselves shaped by, national-institutional

14 http://www.jo-in.org/about.html [Accessed 21 August 2006].

particularly pertinent to garment suppliers and on which various MSIs have

5. Conclusion: global labour standards,

You might also like