From: 3/5/98 21:40 Subject: Duke: new licensing codeTo: clr@igc.org Labor Alerts: a service of Campaign for Labor Rights To receive our email labor alerts, send a message to CLR@igc.apc.org Phone: (541) 344-5410 Web site: http://www.compugraph.com/clr Membership/newsletter. Send $35.00 to Campaign for Labor Rights, 1247 "E" Street SE, Washington, DC 20003. Sample newsletter available on request. DUKE SETS NEW LICENSING POLICY A first in the nation, Duke's new standards could have an important impact on sweatshops. March 4, 1998 [Information provided by Students against Sweatshops (at Duke) and Global Exchange (415) 255-7296] On Friday, March 6 Duke University will go public with its ground-breaking new policy on licensing contracts, a policy which - if adopted widely by other campuses - could have a profound impact on reducing sweatshop abuses. The Duke student organization Students against Sweatshops, whose members have been negotiating the terms of the code with university administrators since the fall, hope that it will be a model for other schools wishing to play a role in stopping the global proliferation of sweatshops. The Code of Conduct encompasses all Duke University licensees - companies which manufacture products emblazoned with the Duke name and/or logo. Under the terms of the Code, any company seeking a contract with Duke must comply with the new regulations. The Code is designed to force companies to be accountable for the conditions under which their products are manufactured. Sections cover issues such as worker treatment and maximum work hours per week. The Code was modeled largely on existing international standards, such as those embodied in covenants of the International Labor Organization and other bodies of the United Nations. Students against Sweatshops insisted that the Code include sufficient enforcement teeth that it not end up being a cosmetic cover for business as usual. For example, the Code requires licencees to disclose to the university a complete listing of sites which have any role in the manufacturing process, from primary contractor factories or assembling centers down through all layers of the subcontracting system, whether international or domestic - including locator information for each site. Linked closely with the demand for factory disclosure is a stipulation that the university has the right to send independent monitors to inspect conditions and labor practices in those factories. The Code provides for such inspections to be conducted at least once a year and mandates that a report will be given to a committee of both students and administration representatives for review. Licensees whose manufacturing sources are found in noncompliance with the code will be granted a period in which to correct problems, after which - if substantive violations remain - Duke will terminate the licensee's contract. The Code of Conduct is based on the premise that the purchasing leverage of a university is greater than that of individual consumers - all the more so if several universities adopt the same or similar codes. Student activists pointed out that Duke currently is ranked Number One in the nation in men's basketball, greatly increasing the demand for its athletic gear. Because Duke is in a position of demand, if one company does not comply with the Code, other manufacturers would eagerly step in to assume a licensing agreement to manufacture for the university. This special leverage helps to raise the profile of Duke's Code and to establish it as a national standard for universities. The Code deals with sweatshop abuses by any licensee, whether a high-profile company such as Nike or a lesser-known brand. Nike, which currently manufactures Duke apparel, has become almost synonymous with sweatshops in the public consciousness. Under the new Code, once Nike's factory locations have been disclosed, if Nike contractors are found in persistent violation of the Code, Duke will terminate its contract with Nike. The Code does not encompass contracts with athletic teams, only licensing. Team contracts are already in place. While the athletic teams are visible advertising for companies such as Nike, the licensing industry is where all the real money-making for these companies occurs. Student activists noted that Nike's contract with the Duke athletic department prohibits coaches from freely expressing whatever concerns they may have about the company's labor practices. Nike routinely inserts into its contracts with athletic departments such provisions attempting to limit the right of free speech of players, coaches and other university employees.