Social Accountability International Research Articles

The assessment of corporate social responsibility at Ukrainian banks

Corporate social responsibility issues are becoming increasingly important in the banking sector. It refers to the responsibility of banks for their business activities subject to conceivable implications for society and the environment. Currently, the modern banking system in Ukraine is in the process of shaping its own model and integrating corporate social responsibility into all business processes. Thus, it is argued that objective comprehensive assessment of corporate social responsibility of Ukrainian banks is an essential prerequisite to enhance their performance, along with building a good rapport with clients and encouraging trust in society. From the above perspective, this article suggests an approach to assess corporate social responsibility at banks which entails implementing consistent stages in evaluating the development degree of the three corporate social responsibility components: social, environmental and economic. The assessment framework substantiates a set of indicators for measuring the degree of corporate social responsibility at banks by estimating the ratio of the GRI related aspects in the financial statements of banks, and identifying the possibility to implement the main provisions of the Social Accountability International 8,000 standard and the GRI G4 (Global Reporting Initiative). The proposed approach to measuring corporate social responsibility in banking through the instruments of a three-dimensional matrix and to positioning the banks by the areas of their corporate social responsibility has been tested by processing an array of 82 non-financial reports of 31 banks over the 2016–2018 period.

The Role of NGOs in Ameliorating Sweatshop‐like Conditions in the Global Supply Chain: The Case of Fair Labor Association (FLA), and Social Accountability International (SAI)

AbstractOver the last 20+ years, globalization has made international trade and investment more efficient and productive. In the absence of coordinated global regulatory regimes, it has also made multinational corporations (MNCs) impervious to social concerns in the countries where they operate. There is considerable debate in the academic, political, and business arena as to the causes of the apparently inequitable distribution of benefits between labor and capital. Notwithstanding, the relative merits of this debate, and facing tremendous societal pressure, companies have adopted voluntary codes of conduct to ensure that workers making products for them in poor and developing countries are protected from hazardous working conditions and receive wages that meet local laws and market conditions. These codes, however, suffer from a lack of credibility and proof of substantive compliance. A new type of nongovernmental organization (NGO) has emerged that monitors a company's compliance with prespecified standards and provides assurance to the external stakeholders that the company has fulfilled its voluntary obligations. From an historical perspective, this has been an innovative phenomenon where the monitoring organization purports to act as an honest broker to ensure all concerned that the company/industry has fulfilled its obligations. In this article, we undertake a thorough examination of two such organizations, that is, Fair Labor Association, and Social Accountability International, that have played a pioneering role in bridging the gap between societal expectations and corporate performance. We examine their governance structures, operating procedures, monitoring standards, and public disclosure of findings, and above all, their success in improving the level of corporate compliance with their self‐created codes or standards. Unfortunately, our findings and conclusions are disappointing. In our view, the two groups have mostly failed to meet their avowed goals. Rather than using their NGO status to help companies improve their code compliance, they have suffered from managerial capture and have been reduced to corporate apologists.

Improving Labor Standards through SA 8000 Certification: The Case of a Public Sector Enterprise

Social Accountability 8000 (SA8000) has been developed by Social Accountability International (SAI), known until recently as the Council on Economic Priorities Accreditation Agency. SA8000 is based on the principles of international human rights norms as described in International Labor Organisation conventions, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, with an objective to guarantee workers’ rights so that everyone involved wins: companies, workers, trade unions and government. It measures the performance of companies in eight key areas: child labor, forced labor, health and safety, free association and collective bargaining, discrimination, disciplinary practices, working hours and compensation. This study specifically focuses on how the Public Sector Enterprise has managed to improve its labor standards through SA 8000 certification.

Whose Administrative Law is it Anyway? How Global Norms Reshape the Administrative State

The emergence of global norms of administrative law reshapes the administrative state. In many areas, covering diverse topics such as trade, financial regulation, public health and the environment, various international agencies have acquired increasing influence over domestic regulatory processes. The integration with the global arena requires the state to forgo some of its regulatory powers. This Article focuses on the normative challenges posed by this new reality. Part I explicates the way in which the argument presented differs from the global administrative law literature. Whereas global administrative law studies the meta-norms that regulate the activities of global administrative bodies, we focus on the way in which international norms reshape decision-making processes within domestic bureaucracies. This Article develops an analytical schema that captures the distinct impacts of global administrative law on the domestic level. This schema distinguishes between three forms of influence: the substitution of domestic administrative discretion by global standards, the emergence of universal standards of administrative due process, and the globally inspired transference of enforcement responsibilities. Part II maps the various mechanisms through which transnational regulatory processes intervene in the local realm, reshaping the contours of domestic administrative law. The Article takes a pluralistic approach by highlighting the diverse sources and paths through which global law influences the domestic realm. Thus we focus both on the influence of the WTO system, as reflected in the three recent rulings against the U.S. (the Tuna-Labeling, Clove Cigarettes and Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) Requirements cases) and on the influence of private transnational institutions such as the International Organization for Standardization, certification bodies such as Social Accountability International (SAI), and regulatory scientific institutions such as the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP). Part III proceeds to examine the normative challenges posed by these transnational regulatory processes. We start by exploring the hidden ideological agendas of this new global normative body, highlighting especially its neo-liberal, capitalist origins. We then move to discuss the problematic of fragmented accountability regimes. These reflections question the legitimacy of the new body of globalized administrative law and point to the need to adapt our democratic conceptions and practices to this new reality. In this context, our approach steers a middle course between the extremes of sovereign exceptionalism and global constitutionalism, focusing on the potential of administrative law for democratic innovativeness.

Transnational Private Regulation in Practice: The Limits of Forest and Labor Standards Certification in Indonesia

Systems for certifying sustainable resource use and decent labor conditions have become prominent modes of private regulation at the transnational level. But serious questions remain about how these global standards are put into practice in particular places, especially in developing countries. Drawing on fieldwork in Indonesia, this paper examines the growth of certification of sustainable forestry (e.g., through the Forest Stewardship Council) and certification of decent labor conditions in factories (e.g., through Social Accountability International). Based on the controversy that surrounded both sweatshops and deforestation in Indonesia, and the export dependence of both the apparel/footwear and forest products sectors, these would appear to be prime candidates for the application of certification. Yet in both sectors, the growth of multi-stakeholder certification has been limited. Furthermore, private regulation in Indonesia has taken somewhat divergent paths in these two sectors, which shapes certification's significance at the point of production. The paper examines how the socio-legal context of certification, the character of supply chain relationships, and possible differences in the politics of labor and the environment can help to explain these patterns and contribute to a richer sense of private regulation's “on the ground” manifestations.

Workplace codes as tools for workers

Workers face tremendous challenges in their fight to organise, both in terms of personal risk and the sheer number of obstacles. Overcoming such challenges requires multiple strategies and broad‐ranging collaboration. In this article we begin by reviewing the repression that workers face. We then look at how voluntary workplace codes might help workers organise. Using the SA8000 standard as an example, we look at some of the elements that could be most useful in organising workers. Finally, we look at a collaborative project between the International Textile, Garment and Leather Workers' Federation and Social Accountability International to develop a training programme that not only helps workers understand how to use codes to their benefit but also builds on their current organising and education strategies.

Social Accountability Audits: Challenging or Defending Democratic Governance?

Current criticisms of the role of audit in society have painted a bleak picture about its use as a regulatory tool, highlighting negative consequences for democratic governance. This paper examines social accountability audits in light of these concerns. Two case studies of social certification systems are examined in detail: Fairtrade Labelling Organizations International (FLO) and Social Accountability International (SAI). These systems are evaluated using the lenses of accountability, ownership, trust, and reflexivity before concluding that social auditing processes, if done well and situated within stakeholder‐based institutions such as FLO and SAI, can aid democratic and legitimate governance processes.