Copyright 2008. No quotation or citation without attribution.
IR/PS CSR Case #08-03

The SA8000 Standard
By: Shannon Cummings

GRADUATE SCHOOL OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS AND PACIFIC STUDIESUNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO

Prepared for Professor Peter Gourevitch
Edited by Kristen Parks
Corporate Social Responsibility
Fall 2008

Copyright 2008. No quotation or citation without attribution.

2

Table of Contents
Introduction....................................................................................................................... 3
Overview of Social Accountability International........................................................... 3
Overview of the SA8000 ................................................................................................... 4
Introduction to the SA8000 Certification Process ......................................................... 6
The Relationship between SAI-SAAS............................................................................... 6
Certification Bodies......................................................................................................... 7
The Certification Process ............................................................................................... 10
An Overview .................................................................................................................. 10
The SA8000 Criteria ..................................................................................................... 12
Complaints Process....................................................................................................... 14
SA8000 Insufficiencies and Suggestions ....................................................................... 16
Final Remarks ................................................................................................................. 18
Discussion Questions....................................................................................................... 20
Appendix 1. Social Accountability International Advisory Board............................ 21
Appendix 2. SAAS Accredited Certification Bodies.................................................... 22
Appendix 3. SAI Board of Directors ............................................................................. 23
Appendix 4. Complaint and Appeal Example............................................................. 24

Copyright 2008. No quotation or citation without attribution.

3

Introduction
As the global economy expands, workers’ rights have become a major issue in thecontext of corporate social responsibility. Consumers have begun demanding that the
products they buy, and in turn, the corporations that they support are practicing corporatesocial responsibility. They want to be assured that the workers of the global supply chain
are being treated justly. As corporations and governments alike have repeatedly failed toprovide the framework for verifying just working conditions, various organizations havecome forward to provide verification systems for adherence to a global standard for
ensuring basic labor rights.1 This case examines one such standard, the SA8000, which
was formed by Social Accountability International. The SA8000 was created in the hopethat corporations will seek out only SA8000 certified facilities to be a part of their global
supply chain, thus reassuring consumers that they are a socially responsible brand.

Overview of Social Accountability International
Social Accountability International (SAI) is an international, not for profit organizationthat promotes basic human rights for workers worldwide. It was established in 1996 as
an Advisory Board designed to create a voluntary workplace standard, the SA8000, thatwould ensure ethical labor practices. The Board is composed of stakeholders from
corporations, non-governmental organizations, and labor and trade unions. Members of
this board come from corporations or organizations such as Gap, Inc., Toys R’ Us, Dole

1

Seidman, Gay, W. Beyond the Boycott. Russell Sage Foundation, New York, 2007. p
40.

Copyright 2008. No quotation or citation without attribution.

4

Food Company, CARE International, and the United Food and Commercial Workers
International Union (for a complete list refer to Appendix 1). The Advisory Board’s
continuing function is to provide direction for policies of SAI, review any challenges toaccreditation, as well as review the SA8000 standard. The Advisory Board has no
responsibility for the day-to-day operation of SAI. There is also a Board of Directors
whose responsibilities include evaluating the performance of the organization in regard toactivities, operations, and future plans.2

Overview of the SA8000
The SA8000 is an auditable standard and verification system designed to ensure thatbasic workplace standards are met. The standard is based on international workplace
norms established from the International Labour Organization Convention, the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, and the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child. The
basic elements include stipulations on child labor, forced labor, health and safety,
freedom of association and the right to collective bargaining, discrimination, discipline,
working hours, compensation, and management systems. Similar to the Fair Labor
Association3, the SA8000 is implemented at the factory-level, meaning that individual
factories are monitored and certified for compliance with workplace standards, rather
than a company or brand. To certify that the SA8000 standard is conformed to, every
facility must be audited. Workplaces are certified through independent, third party

2
3

Social Accountability International Website: http://www.sa-intl.org
Shen, Fair Labor Association, IR/PS CSR Case 07-24, 2007.

Copyright 2008. No quotation or citation without attribution.

5

certification bodies that are accredited by Social Accountability Accreditation Services(SAAS). The certification process occurs when individual facilities and organizations
undergo voluntary assessment by a third-party auditor. If the facility meets all thestandards required, it receives a certificate attesting to its compliance. SAI uses SAAS to
manage the individual certification bodies that carry out audits at the facilities.4
Currently, there are 1,779 certified facilities in 67 countries with a total of 933,272
workers employed. This year to date, there have been 182 new certifications. Factories
have been certified from 67 diverse industries, with the most common being apparel andtextiles, footwear, toys, agriculture, metal products, food processing and housewares,
automotives, chemicals, and building materials. Italy accounts for 46 percent of certified
facilities, followed by India with 16 percent, China with 13 percent, and Brazil with 5
percent. However, the number of workers employed at SA8000 certified facilities, places
India at the top of the list. The chart below lists the number of workers employed atcertified facilities by country. As seen in the chart, India, China, and Italy have thehighest proportion of workers employed by SA8000 certified facilities.5

Country
India
China
Italy
BrazilVietnamPhilippines
Spain
PakistanThailandIndonesia

45Summary of Facility by Number of
Employees
235233197593
145683
64848
39381
35275
28235
27991
18866
18007

Social Accountability Accreditation Services website: http://www.saasaccreditation.org
SAAS website, “Certification” section

Copyright 2008. No quotation or citation without attribution.
Sri Lanka
Costa Rica
Bangladesh
Portugal
Romania
Kenya
Argentina
Mauritius
Other

6

12960
9436
8466
7832
6081
5709
5632
5324
60720

Introduction to the SA8000 Certification Process
The Relationship between SAI-SAAS
SAI does not directly accredit the certification bodies that conduct the SA8000
certification process, rather it utilizes Social Accountability Accreditation Services as theaccreditation body to ensure that certification bodies are qualified. SAAS was originallycreated as the accreditation branch of SAI. However, in 2007 it was formally established
as an independent, not-for-profit organization. The only further information detailed on
the SAAS website about the relationship between the two organizations is the following
statement: “SAAS is now an independent decision-making agency, linked to SAI only
through contractual arrangements.”6
Since SAAS was originally created as a branch of SAI, there is a definite connection
between the two. Although SAAS now claims to be an independent organization, it was
still created within the framework of SAI, so it cannot be a completely unbiased or
neutral party to the accreditation process, as both SAI and SAAS assert. Also there is alack of transparency in that there are very minimal details on either the SAI and SAAS

6SAAS website, “FAQ’s” section

Copyright 2008. No quotation or citation without attribution.

7

website about the relationship between the two. This makes both organizations appear
less credible.
On the other hand, there are a couple points that lend themselves to ensuring SAAS, andin turn, SAI’s credibility. The first is that SAAS’s accreditation activities are monitoredby the ISEAL Alliance, as well as through peer reviews, to ensure compliance with the
ISO standards. Another fact that provides assurance is that another organization,
Interaction, now uses SAAS to accredit certification bodies to audit against its PVO
standard and verification code. If another organization is confident in SAAS’s
accreditation process than it shows that SAAS is a credible, and seemingly independent
organization.
Certification Bodies
SAAS accredits certification bodies to certify compliance with the SA8000. The
accreditation process includes “documentation review, site audits and observation ofauditors in the field,”7 as well as random audits of the certifying bodies. SAAS assesses
these bodies to ensure that the SA8000 certification process can and is being carried out
the way it was designed to. By observing auditors in the field, SAAS can assure SAI thatthe audits are being conducted professionally and that the integrity of the certification
process is intact. Certification of compliance to SA8000 is only available through SAASaccredited certification bodies. There are currently 18 accredited certification bodies for

7

SAAS website, “Accreditation” section

Copyright 2008. No quotation or citation without attribution.

8

the SA8000 from the U.S., the U.K. Portugal, Italy, Switzerland, India, Hong Kong, andUruguay.8 For a complete list of the certification bodies please refer to Appendix 2.
Critics have argued that the certification bodies are too aligned with commercial interests.
Although NGO’s are eligible to become auditors, currently there are only commercial
auditing firms performing SA8000 audits. “The commercial relationship may not be
trustworthy. The fact that these audit companies are directly paid by the factories being
audited raises questions of independence.”9 Moreover, SAI has corporate interests
represented on both its Advisory Board and Board of Directors.10 Critics have asserted
that in order to effectively meet the goal of ensuring workers’ rights globally,
corporations cannot sit on any governance boards. As Dara O’Rourke pointed out, there
is a “perceived corporate bias”11 associated with this.
It is worth noting that in contrast to both the SAI and the FLA, the WRC takes a
distinctly different approach. The WRC directly investigates factories only once acomplaint is received. This is often referred to as the “fire alarm” approach, which uses
“publicity to raise consumer awareness about abuses rather than claiming to certify thatspecific manufacturers have complied with global codes.”12 When violations are
identified, the WRC then investigates the factory and recommends appropriate corrective
measures. This difference between the WRC and the FLA is described in the following

8

SAAS website, “Certification Bodies” section
Schipper, Irene. “WE Europe: A Report on CSR Policy and SA8000”. SOMO.
Amsterdam, Sept. 2004
10
Refer to Appendix 3 for SAI Board of Directors
11
O’Rourke, Dara. 2000. “Outsourcing Regulation: Analyzing Non-governmental
Systems of Labor Standards and Monitoring”. Policy Studies Journal 31(1). P 15.
12
O’Rourke, 2000, p 14
9

Copyright 2008. No quotation or citation without attribution.

9

quote:
Another integral element to the structural foundation of the WRC has been its
commitment to remain entirely independent. Unlike the FLA and other mandates… theWRC does not allow corporations to serve on its governing board… this composition was
intended to allow the WRC to remain faithful to the interests of workers in the apparelindustry.13
The WRC’s model seems to offer more credibility than that of either SAI or the FLA,
since its composition is designed so that only workers interests are represented. This may
be the case, but it is also harder to implement across a range of industries. Since the WRC
focuses solely on the apparel industry, and in particular, on the supply chains of apparelsold as university bookstores, it is hard to make a direct comparison between it and SAI
because of the difference in scope. The WRC was formed in response to university
student and faculty outcry to ensure that a specific industry’s supply chain was “sweat
shop” free,14 whereas SAI was created as a collaborative effort to ensure that workers
rights are protected while taking into consideration the interests of diverse range ofstakeholders. The “fire alarm” approach would not be feasible when taking into
consideration the broad scope of the SAI’s endeavor. It would be impractical and not
viable for one organization to respond to complaints across all industries for all thefactories in the world.

13
14

Chavez, Workers Rights Consortium, IR/PS CSR Case 07-25, 2008.
Chavez, Workers Rights Consortium, IR/PS CSR Case 07-25, 2008.

Copyright 2008. No quotation or citation without attribution.

10

The Certification Process
An Overview
The SA8000 certification process starts with an application from an individual factory toa SAAS-accredited auditing firm. Once an application is received and accepted, it isdetermined whether a pre-audit report is needed. If it is deemed necessary, the facility isvisited and a pre-audit report is created containing a list of required improvements to bemade before certification can be attained.
If it is found that the facility requires additional procedures to meet the Standard,corrective actions must then be put in place. Once the certification audit is conducted,
corrective actions may be issued and again, procedures will need to be put in place tocorrect them. Major corrective actions must be evident before certification may be
granted.15
Once the facility has met any outstanding requirements from the pre-audit phase, theactual audit certification takes place. Compliance is verified by auditing against thestandard that makes use of “extensive checklists and examples of methods for verifying
compliance.”16 Once a company is deemed fit for certification it is granted a certificate
acknowledging that it is a SA8000 certified facility. This certificate can then be sharedwith any party of the facility’s choosing. A public list is maintained on the SAAS
website that lists all certified facilities, their address, industry, and the body that certified
them.17 After certification, periodic “surveillance audits” are conducted at least once
every 6 months for the following three years. Certification expires after three years, and

15

SAAS website, “FAQ’s” section
Schipper, 2004, P 12.
17
To access a list of certified facilities visit the SAAS website:
http://www.saasaccreditation.org/certfacilitieslist.htm
16

Copyright 2008. No quotation or citation without attribution.

11

facilities must undergo the full certification process to become re-certified.18 The
certification process is simplified and illustrated in the flow chart below.
PRE‐AUDIT

CERTIFICATION
AUDIT‐after application,
there is an initial
visit to the facility‐facility is audited
against a standard
and verified
through checklists

FOLLOW UP
AUDITS‐“surveillance
audits” take placeat least once
every 6 months‐creation of pre‐audit reportdetailing a list of‐must have full re‐‐granted once allnecessarycertification audit
pre‐audit criteria
improvement
every three years
issatisfied
Itrequired
is unclear
forif the “surveillance audits” are announced or unannounced. Unannounced
certification

audits would make the monitoring process more credible because the facility

management would not have any advance warning to take corrective steps that arenormally not in place, only for the sake of passing the audit. This type of audit would
allow the auditor to get a more informed, and true picture of the facility’s labor practices.
In contrast, announced audits would allow the facility management to cover up any
potential problems, which would make this type of audit, in effect, little more than aformality to give the appearance of compliance. Little detail is provided on the SAAS
website about the nature or scope of the surveillance audits. This lack of transparency
works against the credibility of the SA8000 standard.
An additional point of criticism revolves around the fact that facilities are certified basedon a one-day, complete audit. Facility management can prepare for these audits, which

18

SAAS website, “FAQ’s” section

Copyright 2008. No quotation or citation without attribution.

12

means that the state the auditor views the facility in is unlikely to be consistent with thetypical practices of the facility. This format makes auditors less capable of “finding
violations that are less visible, such as working hours, wages, discrimination, and soon.”19 Uncovering these types of violations would depend on the accuracy ofmanagement’s records as well as the truthfulness of the employees that you talk to. It is
unclear if the workers with whom auditors speak are pre-selected by management, but if
this were the case then it would certainly affect the accuracy of the report.

The SA8000 Criteria
The SA8000 is based on a set of auditable criteria. This criterion is what factories areaudited against for compliance. The criteria were designed based on basic labor
standards to ensure that workers globally are treated fairly. Below is a list of the nine
main points that are addressed by the standard, as well as a brief description of each.20
1. Child Labor: No workers under the age of 15; minimum lowered to 14 forcountries operating under the ILO Convention 138 developing-country exception;
remediation of any child found to be working
2. Forced Labor: No forced labor, including prison or debt bondage labor; nolodging of deposits or identity papers by employers or outside recruiters
3. Health and Safety: Provide a safe and healthy work environment; take steps toprevent injuries; regular health and safety worker training; system to detect threats
to health and safety; access to bathrooms and potable water
4. Freedom of Association and Right to Collective Bargaining: Respect theright to form and join trade unions and bargain collectively; where law prohibitsthese freedoms, facilitate parallel means of association and bargaining
19

Schipper, 2004, P 14
The complete 2008 SA8000 standard can be accessed on the SAI website:
http://www.sa-intl.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=Page.viewPage&pageID=710
20

Copyright 2008. No quotation or citation without attribution.

13

5. Discrimination: No discrimination based on race, caste, origin, religion,
disability, gender, sexual orientation, union or political affiliation, or age; nosexual harassment
6. Discipline: No corporal punishment, mental or physical coercion or verbal
abuse
7. Working Hours: Comply with the applicable law but, in any event, no morethan 48 hours per week with at least one day off for every seven day period;
voluntary overtime paid at a premium rate and not to exceed 12 hours per week
on a regular basis; overtime may be mandatory if part of a collective bargaining
agreement
8. Compensation: Wages paid for a standard work week must meet the legal andindustry standards and be sufficient to meet the basic need of workers and theirfamilies; no disciplinary deductions
9. Management Systems: Facilities seeking to gain and maintain certificationmust go beyond simple compliance to integrate the standard into their
management systems and practices.21

Taking into account the scope of this study, I would like to highlight and address two of
the stipulations. Firstly, the inclusion of “freedom of association and the right tocollective bargaining” is unique to the SA8000, and also controversial. The fact that theSA8000 includes this as a requirement is groundbreaking, and in theory, should becommended for breaking barriers. However, since the SA8000 operates in several
developing countries with communist and/or authoritarian governments, it is seemingly
impossible for this criterion to be met. Since China is one of the countries with the mostcertified facilities this draws into question how rigorous the auditors are in ensuring
compliance with every set of criteria in the standard. The SAI asserts that in countries
where the formation of unions is not possible, signs of progress will be accepted as

21

SAI website, “Overview of SA8000” section

Copyright 2008. No quotation or citation without attribution.

14

sufficient to meeting this requirement, but “signs of progress” are not defined. The
vagueness of this stipulation lacks transparency because it brings into question how afacility can be set to satisfy or not satisfy this criteria if it in not auditable.
The second criterion to be highlighted is “compensation”. The SA8000 stipulates thatwages must meet the “basic need” of the workers. The complete standard goes into moredetail about this, stating:
The company shall respect the right of personnel to a living wage and ensure thatwages paid for a normal work week shall always meet at least the legal or industry
minimum standards and shall be sufficient to meet the basic needs of personnel and toprovide some discretionary income.22
The second part of this criterion detailing that the wage must meet the basic needs ofworkers serves to differentiate the SA8000 from the FLA, by taking it one step further.
The FLA only requires that the prevailing wage be paid, which means the local minimum
wage, whereas the SA8000 takes into account the fact that the prevailing wage may not
be adequate to meet the basic needs of workers.23 However, this remains controversial
because the methodology used to calculate this “basic needs wage” is not detailed. It is
unclear how this requirement of the standard is audited without further details, therefore
diminishing the transparency of the SA8000.

Complaints Process
SAAS maintains a list of complaints on its website. Complaints and appeals are acceptedfrom certification bodies and other interested stakeholders against the accreditation

22
23

SAI Website, “SA8000 Documents” section
O’Rourke, 2000, p 9.

Copyright 2008. No quotation or citation without attribution.

15

process. There are four types of complaints:
Type 1A Complaints: Received from accredited and applicant certification bodies
regarding audit, surveillance, or other client service provided by SAAS.
Type 1B Appeals: Received from accredited and applicant certification bodies against
determinations/decisions made by SAAS, including those that lead to accreditation
withdrawal or an accreditation not being issued.
Type 2 Complaints: Received from certified organizations or other interested parties
regarding the performance of SAAS-accredited certification bodies.
Type 3 Complaints: Received from interested parties about the performance of certified
organizations.24
When a type 3 complaint is received about the performance of an organization certified
by a SAAS-accredited certification body, the complaint is directed to the relevant
certification body that conducts an investigation, and makes a decision regarding anappropriate course of action whether that be rebuking the complaint, or withdrawing
SA8000 certification from the applicable facility. If the complainant is not satisfied withthe outcome of the investigation, it can then file a Type 2 complaint, in which SAAS willthen conduct an investigation of the certification body being called into question.25 The
list of complaints includes those that have already been investigated, and thoseundergoing investigation. There are currently 20 complaints listed. Each complaint lists
the type of complaint, the date, the name of the facility or certification body and address,
the details of the complaint including the element(s) of the SA8000 standard called into
question, the actions taken, and the outcome. An example of a complaint from the SAAS
website is given in Appendix 4.

24
25

SAAS website, “Accreditation- Complaints and Appeals Process” section
SAAS website, “Accreditation- Complaints and Appeals Process” section

Copyright 2008. No quotation or citation without attribution.

16

The public disclosure of the complaint and appeal process is an advantage of the SA8000
standard. This promotes transparency, and in turn credibility, my assuring stakeholders
that the standard is being upheld after the initial certification period, and that problems
are not just being covered up to give the appearance that the certification process always
works perfectly. It illustrated that SA8000 certification is not merely a piece of paper,
but rather a standard that is enforced.

SA8000 Insufficiencies and Suggestions
As a relatively new auditable social standard, the SA8000 is the subject of much
criticism. The following will summarize what I have described to be SA8000’s biggest
insufficiencies, as well as offer possible suggestions to improve upon these problem
areas. I am not implying that these suggestions would solve the problem, rather that they
may serve as a starting point for further discourse on the topic.
• There is a lack of transparency surrounding the relationship between SAI and
SAAS. Details are not provided on either website that address this, which could
possibly lead an interested party to believe that SAAS is not truly an independentand unbiased organization. This sheds doubt on the credibility of SAAS toaccredit certifying bodies to audit against the SA8000. I suggest that SAI and
SAAS expand upon their ongoing relationship with each other, and provide
further details regarding SAAS’s split from SAI. The provision of a contact for
further questions would also help add transparency.
• There are currently no NGOs serving as certification bodies for the SA8000

Copyright 2008. No quotation or citation without attribution.

17

standard. Although SAI guidelines state that NGOs can serve as auditors, to datethere have been none that have taken this step. This diminishes the credibility of
the SA8000, because it insinuates that the standard is too closely linked tocommercial interests to truly protect the rights of the worker. I suggest that SAI
work to involve No’s more directly in the monitoring process, by supportingthem in becoming SAAS- accredited certification bodies. This would help
appease the critique that commercial interests are too heavily weighted in theprocess.
• Full audits for certification or re-certification are conducted on one day, once
every three years. Periodic surveillance audits are also conducted, but it isunclear if these are announced or un-announced. It is unlikely that auditors
would be able to get an accurate reflection of the conditions workers face from a
one-day visit. Also, it is unknown is the workers with whom auditors speak are
pre-selected, which would determine the accuracy of the information provided,and in turn, affect the decision for certification. I suggest that full certification or
re-certification audits be conducted over a more extended period of time. I
believe that at least a week of observation is necessary to ensure that the auditors
get a more accurate depiction of the true conditions at a facility. Additionally,
facility workers should be chosen at random to speak with the auditors.
• The stipulation in the SA8000 criteria for “freedom of association and the right tocollective bargaining” provides little detail about how this is interpreted andevaluated in communist countries such as China, which is one of the largest
sources of SA8000-certified facilities. This lack of transparency sheds doubt onCopyright 2008. No quotation or citation without attribution.

18

the credibility of certification to certain facilities, particularly those in China. I
suggest that further explanation be provided as to what “continued progress” isin this regard, and that guidelines are listed as to how this can be evaluated andaudited.

Final Remarks
The SA8000 standard provides a unique approach to monitoring and certification ofbasic labor standards in the global supply chain. Rather than certifying an entire brand or
merchandiser, as do the FLA and WRC, SAI’s SA8000 certifies individual factories byusing third-monitoring bodies to audit against the standard. This makes certain that every
facility is audited and certified, which gives both the parent company and the consumer
confidence in the integrity of each step in its supply chain. Multinational corporations
can also seek out SA80000-certified facilities to use in their global supply chains. The
use of facilities that are SA8000-certified will signal that they are socially responsible,
and will increase consumer confidence in their corporation.
SAI’s SA8000 does several things that I would argue are commendable such as using
third-party certification bodies to audit against the standard, requiring that a basic living
wage be met, and publicly disclosing complaints and appeals. However, having been
established in 1997, the SA8000 is relatively new to the scene of monitoring labor
standards, and has come under criticism for several points such as commercial
involvement in the certification process, the inability of one-day audits to provide an
accurate reflection of factory conditions, and the lack of transparency surrounding theCopyright 2008. No quotation or citation without attribution.
stipulation regarding the right to collective bargaining. Although the standard has its
insufficiencies, I would argue that the standard still provides one of the most credible
assessments of the condition of workers at the facility level.

19

Copyright 2008. No quotation or citation without attribution.

20

Discussion Questions

1. As a consumer, would you only buy merchandise from a corporation whose facilities
in its global supply chain had been certified by the SA8000? How would you find out if
the corporation were using only SA8000-certified facilities? Do you think thisinformation is easily accessible to the majority of consumers? Why or why not?
2. SAI asserts that its Advisory Board and Board of Directors are made up of
stakeholders from the private sector, labor and trade unions, and non-profit organizations
to ensure that the SA8000 is a collaborative effort. Additionally, all of the certification
bodies for the standard are commercial auditing firms. Do you believe that this is thebest method for representing workers’ rights?
3. The SA8000 criteria are designed in such a way that is it supposed to be auditable. Do
you believe this to be the case for all of the stipulations? If not, what suggestions would
you make to ensure that a particular criterion is auditable?
4. Based on your prior knowledge of the WRC and the FLA, as well as the information
reported in this study, compare and contrast them with the SAI. Are they representing
the interests of the same stakeholders? There has been recent discussion about the FLA
and the SAI partnering together, do you think this would be a successful partnership?
Why or why not?

Copyright 2008. No quotation or citation without attribution.

21

Appendix 1. Social Accountability International Advisory Board26

Affiliated with Non-Governmental Organizations, Trade Unions, Socially Responsible Investing andGovernment:
Dorianne Beyer/David Zwiebel

National Child Labor Committee (USA)

Jeroen Douglas

Solidaridad (Netherlands)

Pietro Foschi/Francis Boigelot

Bureau Veritas Certification - formerly BVQI (UK)Jan Furstenborg

Union Network International (Switzerland)

Oden Grajew/Helio Mattar

Ethos Intstitute of Business & Social Responsibility (Brazil)

Joseph Iarocci /Linda Cronin

CARE International (USA)

Alice Tepper Marlin

Social Accountability International (USA)Frits Nagel

Corporate Social Accountability (The Netherlands)

Alan Spaulding

United Food and Commercial Workers International Union(USA)
The Honorable William Thompson

Office of the Comptroller, City of New York (USA)Morton Winston

The College of New Jersey (USA)

Affiliated with Business:
Giorgio Bertinelli/Marisa Parmigiani

Legacoop Nazionale (Italy)

Celina Borges Torrealba Carpi

Grupo Libra (Brazil)

Kishor Chaukar /Anant G. Nadkarni

Tata Industries Limited (India)

Sylvain Cuperlier

Dole Food Company (USA)Tom DeLuca (Chair)

Toys “R” Us (USA)

Durai Duraiswamy/Robin Cornelius

Prem Durai Exports (India) and Switcher SA (Switzerland)

Amy HallEileen Fisher (USA)Dan Henkle/Chuck Goncalves (alternate)

Gap Inc. (USA)

Achim Lohrie

Tchibo (Germany)

Geoffrey Martin-HenryTNT Express (Netherlands)

David McLaughlin

Chiquita Brands International (USA)Dr. Johannes Merck/Gerd Billen

OTTO GmbH & Co KG (Germany)

Nicholas Milowski

KPMG LLP (USA)Steven Newman

Medical and Health Research Association (USA)

Jeff Samuels

Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison (USA)26

SAI website, “Governance” section

Copyright 2008. No quotation or citation without attribution.

Appendix 2. SAAS Accredited Certification Bodies27

Certification Body:

Country:

ABS Quality Evaluations, Inc.

Houston, Texas USA

ALGI

Nyack, NY USA

APCER

Lisboa, Portugal

BSI

Reston, VA USA

Bureau Veritas Certification

London, United Kingdom

CISE

Forlí, Italy

CSCC

Los Angeles, CA USA

DNVChennai, India

HKQAA

North Point, Hong Kong

Intertek

New York, NY USA

IQNet LtdBern, Switzerland

LATU Sistemas

Montevideo, Uruguay

LRQA

Coventry, United Kingdom

RINA

Genova Italy

SGS-SSC

Milano Italy

TUV NORD Group

Kowloon, Hong Kong

TUV Rheinland Group

Kowloon, Hong Kong

TUV SUD South Asia

Mumbai, India

27

SAAS website, “Certification Bodies” section

22

Copyright 2008. No quotation or citation without attribution.

Appendix 3. SAI Board of Directors

Steve Newman (Chair) Vice-President for Finance Chief Operating Officer Public
Health Solutions
Riccardo Bagni Vice Chairman Coop Italia Societa Cooperativa
Torrealba Carpi President and Shareholder Grupo Libra
Dana Chasin Senior Advisor, Federal Fiscal Policy OMB Watch
Tom DeLuca Vice President, Product Development & Safety Assurance Toys R Us
Jan Furstenborg Head of Department - UNI Commerce Union Network International
Alice Tepper Marlin President Social Accountability International
Nicholas Milowski Manager KPMG LLP
Jeff Samuels Partner Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison28

28

SAI website, “Governance” section

23

Copyright 2008. No quotation or citation without attribution.

24

Appendix 4. Complaint and Appeal Example

Complaint #010: Certification Complaint PT Teodore Garmindo Indonesia – Forced
resignations
Details of Facility: -PT. Teodore Garmindo Indonesia -Manufacturer of knitted
garments -Jawa Barat, Indonesia -Certified: March 10, 2005 -Certification Body: SGS
Details of Complaint:
Intimidation of union members
Mass forced resignations

Element of SA8000 Standard:
Freedom of Association 4.3
Management Systems 9.1 Remunersation 8.3

Actions Taken: November 30, 2005: Two companies sent SAI a letter of complaint
against PT Teodore Garmindo Indonesia stating that the facility had been shiftingpermanent workers to contract workers by forcing resignations since July 2005. One
customer of this facility also informed SAI of previous intimidation of union members,
which was resolved prior to receipt of the complaint. SAI notified SGS, the certifier ofthis facility, of the complaint, and SGS submitted a plan of action and results of the initialinquiry to SAI.
December 1, 2005: An SGS auditor attended a meeting between one of the brands
purchasing from this facility and PT Teodore workers. A review of the resignation lettersrevealed that all used similar wording.
December 27-29, 2005: A supplementary investigation audit was conducted by SGS in
conjunction with the chairman of the Indonesian Labour Union Federation which
included worker interviews on the subject of the forced resignations.
January 1, 2006: The auditors’ report was received by SAI, detailing the Corrective
Action Requests (CARs) issued to PT Teodore. The CARs related to the mass
resignations, re-election of labor leaders, worker attendance records, and improving
communication between the labor leader and the members. Per the SGS certification
procedures, the SA8000 certificate was suspended until satisfactory CAR closure wascompleted, and a second audit was scheduled within 90 days as a follow-up. During theaudit, worker interviews confirmed that practice had been for managers to dictate aresignation letter to employees, who felt threatened and did not feel free to refuse to writeCopyright 2008. No quotation or citation without attribution.

25

it. Within days, the workers submit similarly worded applications for the jobs from which
they had just resigned.
March 24, 2006: A follow-up audit conducted by SGS concluded that PT Teodore
Garmindo was ineffective in closing out the CAR related to mass resignations – they
were able to effectively close the other CARs issued to them. PT Teodore’s proposal had
been that workers who repay the resignation money would be given back their permanent
positions. Only 10 persons from a total resignation pool of 429 gave back the moneyfrom the resignation package. Worker interviews revealed that these workers were unable
to pay back the money as they had used it to pay for basic necessities such as theirchildren’s education and religious participation.
April 5, 2006: An update from SGS stated that only the 10 workers were given backpermanent worker status and the company refused to reinstate workers that did not repay
the resignation money.
May 2006: A union/management non-retaliation communication workshop was held withthe goal of establishing communication between management, staff, and the trade union.
May 23, 2006: No agreement was reached on the issue of repayment of resignation
money by the reinstated workers. The SA8000 certificate was suspended, per the SGS
certification procedures, until satisfactory CAR closure was completed.
July 13, 2006: SGS conducted a follow-up audit with PT Teodore and reviewed training
and other records, and did note improvements in production processes. Auditors met withthe management of PT Teodore and concluded that the SA8000 certificate should be
withdrawn as Management did not seek any alternative ways to close the corrective
action, except that workers would have to give back the resignation money 100%.
September 6, 2006: SGS notified SAI that the SA8000 certificate for PT Teodore
Garmindo had been cancelled by SGS due to lack of closure of CARs by PT Teodore.
SAI accepted the SGS decision to withdraw the SA8000 certificate for PT Teodore
Garmindo and has determined that this complaint is formally closed.29

29

SAAS website: http://www.saasaccreditation.org/complaint010.htm