|
Nike Inc. - FLA Independent External Monitoring in Nike'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 Nike’s approach to remediation of noncompliance issues.
B. Summary of FLA Year Two Independent External Monitoring in Nike Applicable Facilities
The following table provides information about FLA independent monitoring visits undertaken in Nike applicable facilities in Year Two. It provides background information about the factories, the monitors, and their visits.
| Nike Independent External Monitoring (IEM) Summary - Year Two |
Number of IEMs in Year Two:
Remediation shared with other FLA Companies:
Remediation undertaken independently:
| 40
10
30
|
| Total person days spent monitoring facilities: |
545 |
| Average person days per facility: |
14 |
| Average number of workers per independently monitored facility: |
2,234 |
| Regions |
Independent External Monitoring Visits |
FLA-Accredited Monitors Conducting Visits |
| East Asia-- China |
9 |
Kenan Institute Asia (4), Societe General du Serveillance (2), Bureau Veritas (3) |
| Southeast Asia-- Malaysia, Thailand, Indonesia, Vietnam |
16 |
Kenan Institute Asia (7) , Societe General du Serveillance (3), Bureau Veritas (6) |
| South Asia-- India, Pakistan |
7 |
T-Group Soulutions (3), Societe General du Serveillance (2), Phulki (2) |
| Americas-- USA, Mexico, Dominican Republic, Honduras, Brazil |
8 |
Cotecna (3), A & L Group, Inc (5) |
C. Independent External Monitoring Results
Chart: Nike Noncompliance Issues Grouped by Code Provision*
Number of IEMs = 40
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 Nike's approach
to remediation of all of the issues summarized here.
Click here for more about the way this data was collected.
The figure above displays the percentage breakdown by Code Provision of the total non-compliance issues reported by FLA independent monitors in Nike applicable facilities, which Nike addressed through remediation in Year Two. Non-compliance findings relating to Health and Safety were the most frequently reported issues, making up 54% of the total non-compliance issues identified1. The most commonly reported and remediated Health and Safety issues related to inadequate postings and evacuation procedures, safety equipment and personal protective equipment.
Issues related to Hours and Wages were also common, with a total of 24% of all findings relating to Wages and Benefits (12%), Hours of Work (7%) and Overtime Compensation (5%). The top Hours and Wages issues that were reported by FLA monitors and taken up by Nike through corrective action plans were related to overtime limitations, overtime compensation, and worker awareness of their wages and benefits.
There were no findings of underage workers in facilities producing for Nike. Issues categorized under the Child Labor provision (2% of all noncompliance reported) mainly related to factories having inadequate documentation for workers' ages in factories records, as required by the FLA.
There were no findings of forced or bonded labor in these facilities. Most noncompliance issues categorized under the Forced Labor provision (1% of all noncompliance reported) related to factories keeping inadequate records to demonstrate compliance with all FLA benchmarks for this Provision.
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 Freedom of Association and Collective Bargaining, Nondiscrimination, and Harassment and Abuse.
Please visit the FLA factory tracking charts to learn more about Nike'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.
|
