|
Considering IEM Findings in Terms of FLA Workplace Code Provisions: An Overview
In Year Two, independent external monitoring took place in 110 facilities. Monitoring findings from 105 of those visits have been compiled and processed for inclusion in this report. Findings from five facilities were not included in these data because full information was not available at the time of processing (click here to access the monitoring reports from those five facilities). As a result, this report focuses on 1,595 noncompliance issues that were observed in 105 factories. Graph 2.3 illustrates the breakdown of the total noncompliance issues by FLA Workplace Code provision.
FLA Year Two IEM Findings by Code Element
* Please note that these findings only represent the 1,595 incidences of separate noncompliance issues as found in 105 of the 110 factories subjected to IEMs in Year Two.
Click here for more about the way this data was collected.
Comparing Monitoring Results from Year One and Year Two
The average number of noncompliance issues reported by FLA-accredited monitors in Year Two, 15.19 per factory increased by about 120 percent from Year One (July 2001-December 2002), when there were an average of 6.85 instances of noncompliance reported per factory. On the surface, this increase may signal an escalation in the rate of noncompliance; however, it is more likely that a combination of factors led to the increase in reported noncompliance. These include the FLA's focus on selecting high-risk facilities for monitoring; improvement in the quality of monitors selected by the FLA to conduct monitoring; and the fact that FLA monitors have become more acquainted with FLA monitoring tools and requirements.
A notable change in the FLA's system was the increased level of quality control of monitoring reports that the FLA headquarters staff exercised in Year Two, which is likely to have improved the rigor of monitoring results. The FLA staff examined every factory report, and reviewed areas that needed further clarification with monitors. It also circulated documents that focused on challenging noncompliance issues, such as Freedom of Association, and offered monitoring guidance that supplemented the FLA monitoring instrument. In some cases, FLA staff accompanied monitors on IEM visits to evaluate their approach to monitoring and reporting, and to help them to improve.
Despite such improvements over the course of Year Two, the FLA recognizes that there is a continued need to improve the quality of monitoring. Based on experiences in factories, it is apparent that FLA findings related to Code provisions, such as Freedom of Association, Harassment or Abuse, and Discrimination, do not mirror the realities on the ground. Improving the monitoring methodology and monitors' ability to utilize it can help to bring about necessary improvements in the quality of data that the FLA collects. To this end, the FLA has redesigned its monitoring instrument and is improving other aspects of the IEM process. The next Annual Public Report will provide more information about these improvements, and future Public Reports will also include more in-depth analyses of trends in factory compliance from year to year.
Link to:
|
