|
Liz Claiborne - FLA Independent External Monitoring in Liz Claiborne's
Applicable Facilities
A. An Introduction to FLA Independent External Monitoring
FLA independent external monitoring (IEM) is one way that the FLA verifies Participating Companies’ compliance activities in the factories where they produce. The FLA conducts unannounced independent external monitoring visits in approximately 5% of all Participating Company applicable facilities that are deemed to be high risk (and no less than 3.5% of the company’s total factory list), and reports on all noncompliance findings in those factories. By observing these monitoring reports and the company’s ensuing remediation, the FLA can verify a company’s progress in developing systems for effective prevention and remediation of noncompliance issues each year. The FLA tracking charts provide detailed information about monitoring findings and LCI’s approach to remediation of noncompliance issues.
B. Summary of FLA Year Two Independent External Monitoring in LCI Applicable Facilities
The following table provides information about FLA independent monitoring visits undertaken in LCI applicable facilities in Year Two. It provides background information about the factories, the monitors, and their visits
| LCI Independent External Monitoring (IEM) Summary - Year Two |
Number of IEMs in Year Two:
Remediation shared with other FLA Companies:
Remediation undertaken independently:
| 11
5
6
|
| Total person days spent monitoring facilities:* |
71.5 |
| Average person days per facility:* |
7 |
| Average number of workers per independently monitored facility: |
370 |
| Regions |
Independent External Monitoring Visits |
FLA-Accredited Monitors Conducting Visits |
| East Asia-- China, Hong Kong |
5 |
Kenan Institute Asia (2), SGS (2), Bureau Veritas (1) |
| Southeast Asia-- Indonesia, Philippines |
2 |
Bureau Veritas (2) |
| South Asia-- India |
2 |
SGS (1), Bureau Veritas (1) |
| Americas-- Guatemala, Peru |
2 |
Coverco (1), Cotecna (1) |
* Because the report for one of the facilities has not yet been submitted, these figures are based on 10 factory reports.
C. Independent External Monitoring Results
Chart: Liz Claiborne, Inc. Noncompliance Issues Grouped by Code Provision*
Number of IEMs = 10**
Please note: This pie chart provides a very cursory overview of
noncompliance issues organized by FLA Code Provision. Click on any Code
Provision name in the legend below for a list of FLA Benchmarks that are
used to measure compliance with that Provision. A more detailed explanation
of these issues follows in the sections following the pie chart.
* Please visit the FLA tracking charts to learn more about Liz Claiborne, Inc.'s approach
to remediation of all of the issues summarized here.
**Please note: Because the report for one of the LCI facilities monitored by FLA was not yet available at the time of drafting this report, this pie graph is based on findings from 10 factory reports.
Click here for more about the way this data was collected.
The figure above displays the percentage of total noncompliance issues reported by FLA independent monitors, which LCI took up through remediation in Year Two. Health and Safety was the noncompliance issue that was most commonly reported in independently monitored LCI facilities, making up 45% of the total noncompliance issues (i.e., approximately 7 health and safety issues were raised in each facility)1. Reported and remediated health and safety issues included inadequate safety postings and evacuation procedures, insufficient personal protective equipment and other safety equipment, and chemical management issues.
Issues related to Hours and Wages were also common in Year Two visits to LCI facilities. A total of 29% of all findings related to Wages and Benefits (16%), Hours of Work (8%) or Overtime Compensation (5%). Top Hours and Wages issues that were reported by FLA monitors and taken up by LCI through corrective action plans were excessive overtime and inadequate time recording systems. Moreover, monitors were unable to confirm that minimum wage laws had been applied due to inadequate record-keeping.
Other Code Provisions were reported by FLA monitors with less frequency. As discussed in previous sections, the FLA is working to develop systems for more effective monitoring and remediation of the Code Provisions that are particularly complex and difficult to assess, such as Nondiscrimination, Freedom of Association and Collective Bargaining, and Harassment and Abuse.
There were no findings of forced or bonded labor in facilities producing for LCI. The Forced Labor (5%) noncompliance reported above related to other benchmarks categorized under this Code provision. Please follow the links in the graph above to learn more about the benchmarks for this and other FLA Code provisions, and visit the FLA factory tracking charts to learn more about LCI's approach to remediation of all of the noncompliance issues mentioned above.
Click here to review the FLA's aggregate findings from visits to factories producing for 25 Participating Companies and Category B Licensees.
1Health and safety are often the most evident and measurable issues in a facility, and therefore figure very highly in the total number of findings.
|
