Learning legacy
Lessons learned from planning and
staging the London 2012 Games
Complaint and dispute
Abstract
resolution process to deal The London Organising Committee of
the Olympic Games and Paralympic
with breaches of the
Games (LOCOG) developed an
Sustainable Sourcing
innovative process to deal with
complaints and grievances related to
Code
the application of its Sustainable
Sourcing Code by commercial
partners, particularly in relation to
labour conditions at factories
supplying sponsors, licensees and
suppliers. LOCOG commissioned a
specialist partner to devise the
process which was informed by the
UN Guiding Principles on Business
and Human Rights. The Complaint
and Dispute Resolution Mechanism
was in addition to the auditing,
monitoring and evaluation efforts of
LOCOG and its commercial partners.
Authors
Stuart Bell
Director, Ergon Associates Ltd
Phil Cumming
Corporate Sustainability Manager,
LOCOG
Steve Gibbons
Director, Ergon Associates Ltd
1
The Complaint and Dispute
Resolution Mechanism was based on
the underlying design principle of
seeking agreement between the
parties on issues and outcomes as far
as possible. It dealt with a range of
labour issues, including some press
allegations about factory working
conditions in various countries and
complaints from international and
national trade unions and civil
society organisations, as well as
complaints from individual workers.
In total, nine separate complaints,
most involving multiple and
sometimes complex issues, were
accepted as falling within the scope
of the mechanism and managed
accordingly. A total of 74 identifiable
remedial actions resulted as well as
other collateral benefits, including
negotiations between employers and
trade unions. The majority of issues
were closed off or otherwise agreed
on, but several issues could not be
settled in the timescale available and
steps were put in place to facilitate
continued dialogue and remedial
action in the future.
The development and operation of
the mechanism offers a number of
lessons not only for major events
organisers but also for any
organisation, either private or public,
with globalised supply chains and
with commitments to see improved
respect for human rights, labour
standards and sustainability
practices. These lessons relate to
design of the mechanism, its
communication, and its operation,
including mediation between parties
and agreement on remediation. It
also provides some clear examples
of the implementation of a key
component of the UN Guiding
Principles on Business and Human
Rights in a particularly complex
environment.
‘A commitment to
address complaints and
the outline of a basic
complaint process was
incorporated into the
LOCOG Sustainable
Sourcing Code’.
Context
Designing the mechanism
As part of London 2012’s commitment
to deliver a sustainable Olympic
Games and Paralympic Games,
LOCOG established policies that all
its sponsors, suppliers, licensees and
contractors (collectively known as
commercial partners) were expected
to follow. These policies were set out
primarily in the LOCOG Sustainable
Sourcing Codea, first adopted in
November 2008 and updated in
December 2009 and July 2011.
A commitment to address complaints
and the outline of a basic complaint
process was incorporated into the
LOCOG Sustainable Sourcing Code
in 2009, and, in April 2010 – more
than two years ahead of the Games,
LOCOG sought operational
proposals for developing a
mechanism for investigating and
dealing with complaints. This
coincided with the final deliberations
of the UN Special Representative on
Business and Human Rights,
Professor John Ruggie. His work had
promoted non-judicial grievance
mechanisms as part of the final pillar
of the overarching ‘Protect, Respect
and Remedy’ framework. With this in
mind, the LOCOG request for
proposalsg specified that any process
should be underpinned by the
emerging UN Principlesh.
The Code contained various
environmental and social standards
for products and services procured
and licensed for the 2012 Olympic
and Paralympic Gamesb including
minimum expected labour practices
with respect to manufacturing and
service delivery (based on the Ethical
Trading Initiative [ETI] Base Codec),
health and safety, diversity and
inclusion, product certification,
environmental management and
materials selection. LOCOG put in
place a mechanism for seeking to
ensure that social audits and other
processes were carried out to support
the implementation of the Code.
a LOCOG, Sustainable Sourcing Code, 3rd Edition,
July 2011
b See associated case study on LOCOG’s
sustainable procurement methods and processes
c The Ethical Trading Initiative is a UK-based
alliance of companies, trade unions and
voluntary organisations established in 1998. The
ETI Base Code has nine provisions covering the
most important generally recognised international
labour standards which its corporate members
must implement in their supply chains.
d ETI, Ethical Trading Principles, Policy proposal for
LOCOG Board (August 2006)
e Playfair 2012 was part of the international
Playfair campaign that began in the run up to
Athens 2004 and continued with Beijing 2008.
The UK Playfair 2012 campaign was coordinated
by the Trades Union Congress (TUC) and Labour
Behind the Label and was supported by various
trade unions and campaigning organisations.
f [Playfair 2012] Draft Complaints Mechanism for
2012 Olympics, Draft for consideration at the
Meeting with LOCOG, 27 April 2008
2
Following the experience of previous
Olympic Games and Paralympic
Games and other major sporting
events, LOCOG and its stakeholders
recognised the likelihood that
complaints would be made about the
way its commercial partners were
implementing the Sustainable Sourcing
Code within LOCOG’s supply chaind.
The complexity of global supply
chains, combined with known poor
working conditions in many sourcing
countries, means that, however well
supply chains are monitored, it is not
possible to guarantee that all products
and all workplaces are continuously
compliant with standards such as the
ETI Base Code. Complaints processes
are seen as complementary to codes
of conduct and national law by
enabling workers to provide input on
the effectiveness with which codes
are being implemented.
In 2008, at LOCOG’s request, the
Playfair 2012 Campaigne made a
detailed proposal for a procedure to
address complaints about breaches
of the Sustainable Sourcing Code,
particularly with regard to labour
standardsf.
LOCOG also recognised that, as a
temporary organisation whose sole
purpose was to deliver the Games,
it did not necessarily have the right
skills or infrastructure in place to
address such complaints. Having
taken soundings from several of its
stakeholders, LOCOG decided that a
semi-outsourced model was the best
way forward.
LOCOG appointed Ergon Associates
Ltd, independent experts in human
rights, labour standards and supply
chains, to develop the Complaints and
Dispute Resolution Mechanism (CDRM).
Ergon developed the mechanism
proposal based on their knowledge
and experience, support from labour
standards consultancy Impactt, and
broad stakeholder engagement. Key
stakeholders consulted in the design
phase included LOCOG’s significant
commercial partners and sponsors,
LOCOG merchandise licensing and
procurement staff, international trade
unions and civil society organisations,
relevant multi-stakeholder labour rights
organisations, and the International
Olympic Committee (IOC). Direct
conversations and facilitated multistakeholder meetings were used.
While it was initially assumed that
stakeholders would have direct
experiences that could inform good
practice, in fact their involvement was
just as important for buy-in and as a
contribution to the communication of
the existence of the process.
‘Mechanism had the
added benefit of
providing assurance to
stakeholders that an
independent process was
followed’.
g LOCOG, Invitation to Tender for Services relating
to the investigation of complaints/allegations
about sustainability issues in the LOCOG supply
chain Part 2: Specific Instructions, April 2010
h The UN Guiding Principles on Business and
Human Rights, published in 2011: www.ohchr.
org/Documents/Publications/
GuidingPrinciplesBusinessHR_EN.pdf
3
Lessons from the design phase
While the mechanism was tailored to
suit LOCOG’s requirements as a
temporary event organiser, there are
some important lessons from the
design and operational phases
which are relevant both for event
organisers and for other buying
organisations such as brands and
retailers with extended supply chains
and commitments to respect labour
standards. LOCOG’s experience
suggests the following lessons from
the design phase:
–– Use emerging good practice from
other grievance and complaints
mechanisms, but ensure the
process is tailored to the
challenges faced by a temporary
major event organiser.
–– Analyse the merchandise licensing
and procurement processes in
order to determine how the
complaints mechanism will be
operationalised in terms of where
responsibility will lie for
implementation and how
communication will be managed.
–– Engage with stakeholders about
the key potential compliance
challenges they foresee and their
expectations for such a
mechanism.
–– Develop a range of ‘complaint
scenarios’ to test how a process
could work in practice, and the
potential solutions – and obstacles
– it might face.
–– Assist understanding by
developing a range of
communication materials for
commercial partners, stakeholders
and the public, as well as draft
guidelines for complainants to
follow.
–– Develop documents and protocols
to assist with complaints
management, for example,
guidelines for internal
investigations, terms of reference
for external investigations and
templates for recording corrective
actions.
–– Ensure staff within the event
organiser/buying organisation
who may be involved in receiving
or dealing with complaints –
including commercial staff –
understand how the process works
and their role in it.
Overview of the CDRM
The resulting agreed mechanism was
structured around several distinct
phases (see Figure 1). These are
described in more detail below, but
essentially the mechanism involved:
–– Assessment: scoping the complaint
to ensure it related to the LOCOG
Sustainable Sourcing Code and to
a good or service being provided
to LOCOG.
–– Reporting/information gathering:
seeking full information from both
the complainant and from the
commercial partner to whom the
complaint was directed. Mediated
discussions between parties took
place to agree on facts, where
possible, and more importantly on
actions to be taken.
–– Independent investigation: where
no agreement could be reached
between parties, the mechanism
allowed for the appointment of an
independent investigator.
–– Remediation: implementation of
corrective or preventative actions,
based on agreement, with
monitoring and reporting back.
This structure had a number of
innovative features. First, it followed
the recommendations in the UN
Guiding Principles and was based
around the objective of seeking
agreed solutions to complaints
through dialogue rather than by
investigation by auditors or the
imposition of corrective action plans.
It was recognised that an investigation
into the substance of complaints may
be necessary, but a more sustainable
outcome should result if the parties to
a complaint can agree on shared
outcomes and actions.
Another feature of the mechanism
was its semi-outsourced operational
structure. This ensured that expertise
and resources not necessarily
available within LOCOG, particularly
during the highly-pressurised preGames and Games-time periods,
could be applied to sometimes
complex complaints. It had the
added benefit of providing assurance
to stakeholders that an independent
process was followed, free from
undue influence from LOCOG.
Importantly, however, LOCOG
retained the final say in how
complaints were dealt with and
‘Stakeholder Oversight
Group created to
provide advice on how
solutions to complaints
could be best promoted
and ensure that
complaints were handled
in a timely, fair and
efficient manner’.
closed off, as these decisions and
actions formed part of their
commercial relationship with their
partners and were an important part
of their implementation of their own
sustainability commitments. In these
terms such a semi-outsourced
approach could have benefits for
any buying organisation. For the
semi-outsourced structure to work
effectively, the third-party manager
should:
–– Have expertise in labour
standards issues in key sourcing
countries.
–– Have expertise in mediation and
facilitation.
–– Have credibility with the range of
external stakeholders and
commercial partners.
–– Maintain a professional working
relationship with the buying
organisation while being able to
maintain its operational
independence.
–– Be flexible in applying the process
according to circumstances, and
have the resources to deal with
sometimes complex, multiple and
lengthy complaints.
A final notable feature was the
creation of a Stakeholder Oversight
Group, to provide advice on how
solutions to complaints could be best
promoted and to ensure that
complaints were being handled in a
timely, fair and efficient manner .
Figure 1: LOCOG Sustainable sourcing code complaints and dispute resolution process
Third-party complaint submitted
•
•
•
•
LOCOG/
TUC
process
ACAS mediator
Assessment phase
Scoping: complaint relates to issue within Sourcing Code
Scoping: complaint relates to LOCOG commercial third party
Ensuring the complainant provides sufficient information
Assessing if complaint can be resolved via existing mechanism
(e.g. company grievance process, legal process)
Reporting / Information phase
Full information in response to complaint / allegation
provided by the commercial third party
Use of appropriate information-gathering methodology to
enable informed discussions
Use of mediator to bring parties together (if complaint)
Consider of need for independent investigation to resolve
the dispute
Press allegation published
Assessment phase
Scoping: allegation relates to
issue in Sourcing Code
Scoping: allegation relates to
LOCOG commercial third party
Scoping: allegation is credible
and poses serious risk
LOCOG
dispute with
commercial
third party
Assessment
phase
All other avenues
have been exhausted
Outstanding
dispute exists
Necessity of
ongoing commercial
relationship
Severity of issue /
risk
Possible independent investigation
Identification of disputed facts
Appointment of appropriate investigator with focussed
Terms of Reference
Further mediation based on investigation report
Remediation / monitoring phase
Agreement between parties on steps needed to remedy the
issues
Allocation of responsibilities and timescales
Agreement on monitoring and verification
Agreement on how outcomes of the dispute should be reported
4
Note 1: In this process, ‘commercial third party’ refers
to LOCOG sponsors, suppliers, licensees and
contractors with responsibilities under the Sustainable
Sourcing Code
Note 2: LOCOG / TUC process existed for
Workforce disputes during the Games
Parallel process
A Games-time grievance resolution protocol was also developed with the
Trades Union Congress (TUC) and the government-sponsored Advisory,
Conciliation and Arbitration Service (ACAS). This was to ensure grievances
by LOCOG’s UK workforce, including contractors, were dealt with quickly,
fairly, consistently and informally wherever possible.
This process ran in parallel with the CDRM and was applicable to labour
supply contracts on the Olympic Park and other venues. However, some
situations could still have fallen within the wider CDRM. For example, any
issues concerning the London Living Wage may not have fallen within the
ambit of the TUC-ACAS process.
It is understood that there was one collective grievance in a contractor
organisation in the pre-Games period but this was resolved at the first level
very quickly. No collective disputes arose during the Games or transition
period. There were a handful of individual grievances but all were
understood to have been resolved informally.
Overview of complaints process and outcomes
Overall, the following complaints were addressed and outcomes achieved:
Table 1: Complaint statistics
Number of complainants
11 (8 organisations,
3 individual workers)
Number of complaints dealt with
9*
Number of worksites affected by complaints
11
Number of countries where complaints were made
3 (China, Philippines,
Indonesia)
Number of workers at sites with complaints
15,708
Number of specific breaches of standards raised in
all complaints
42**
Number of issues where agreement was reached
between parties on remedial action
25**
Number of issues where parties did not agree
5**
Number of remedial actions undertaken by
commercial partners
74
Number of mediations undertaken
3
Number of on-site third-party investigations
3
* 2 complaints were ruled out of scope as they did not relate to worksites producing goods for LOCOG
** Numbers do not add up as some issues were not pursued by complainants, were not addressed for other
reasons (for example, closure of factory) or have yet to be finally closed off at time of writing (November
2012)
5
‘Issues with the highest
incidence were working
hours (including
involuntary overtime),
living wages and
freedom of association’.
Types of issues raised
While 11 complaints were received,
nearly all involved multiple issues.
For example, a single complaint
might include freedom of association,
wage-related issues and hours of
work. Similarly, a number of
complaints related to multiple
worksites. In total, 42 separate issues
were raised within the complaints.
See Appendix 1 for a summary of
complaints received.
All complaints related to labour
issues, rather than other aspects
of the Sustainable Sourcing Code.
These are categorised in Figure 2
in terms of the provisions of the ETI
Base Code.
Figure 2: Incidence of issues contained in in-scope complaints (by ETI Base
Code provision)
It should be noted that within each
broad category there were a number
of different types of complaints. For
example, the category of ‘living
wage’ issues included complaints
related to absolute amounts paid as
well as allegedly inadequate
procedures for paying wages or
registering for social security or
medical insurance. The issues with
the highest incidence were working
hours (including involuntary
overtime), living wages and freedom
of association. This is no surprise
given that many goods were sourced
from east and south-east Asia, where
labour conditions are known to be
relatively poor.
One notable feature, however, was
the relatively high incidence of
complaints related to freedom of
association, an issue which
traditional factory social audits are
usually poor at uncovering. This
demonstrates greater degree of trade
union involvement in this type of
6
mechanism, compared to their
engagement with social audits. It
also potentially illustrates the value of
such a complementary form of
gathering information about supply
chain issues in addition to the
traditional audit model.
Resource and timescales
The time taken to manage complaints
and the resources expended on each
complaint varied according to the
scale and seriousness of the issues
raised (see Figure 3). In general, the
early phases of each complaint were
dealt with within one to two months,
but complex mediated discussions
could extend for a number of months.
Monitoring of corrective actions
extended over six months in some
cases.
Figure 3: Timescale needed for addressing complaints
Start date
Honav
1
Victory Links Arts & Jewelry
Jan-12
Golden Bear
Sewtech Toys Co (Starlight)
Jan-12
Golden Bear
Yancheng Rainbow Arts & Crafts
Jan-12
adidas
Guangzhou Tien Sung Sporting Goods Co. Ltd (Amerseas)
Apr-12
Alcan
Apr-12
Rio Tinto
adidas
Sintex (Metrowear Inc and Mactan Apparel) May-12
Icon Live
May-12
Carlton Books
May-12
adidas
Jul-12
adidas
Jul-12
Time Out
Aug-12
Key
2
3
4
Timeline by Month
5
6
7
8
9
10
Phase of process
Scoping
Information sharing
Mediation / negotiation
Investigation
Implementation / monitoring of CAP
11 complaints dealt with
under the process
In total, for the 11 complaints dealt
with under the process, Ergon, the
third-party manager, expended
around 80 staff days. It is estimated
that LOCOG expended at least 20
staff days. LOCOG time included
liaison with the third-party manager;
compilation and review of relevant
information; responses to media
enquiries; and liaison with
commercial partners, its assurance
body (the Commission for a
Sustainable London 2012) and
members of the Stakeholder
Oversight Group, and other relevant
stakeholders. In addition, LOCOG
directly financed the following:
–– Five independent investigations
in factories in China
–– Two detailed independent reviews
of licensees’ ethical trade
management systems
–– One shadow investigation in
Indonesia, including worker
interviews at three factories
–– One multi-party mediation meeting
in the Philippines involving
provision of a mediator
These resources may seem
considerable, but the call on LOCOG
staff time in its departments dealing
with sustainability management,
commercial relations and media
communication would undoubtedly
have been far greater had the CDRM
not been in place. Moreover, with
the organisation’s focus on its
primary mission, delivery of the
Games, it is questionable whether
such resources would have been
7
available, and therefore whether
complaints and grievances would
have been addressed effectively in
ways that protected both workers
and LOCOG’s reputation.
Lessons and findings
from implementation
Communicating the CDRM
It was recognised that communication
about the CDRM was important both
for workers – so they could use it
– and for commercial partners – so
they knew how to respond and what
to expect under the process.
However, ensuring communication
through a complex and temporary
supply chain was challenging.
LOCOG’s experience suggests the
following lessons:
–– Early communication to commercial
partners, preferably at the same
time as contracts are let, ensures
more knowledge of the mechanism
throughout the supply chain.
–– Communication to workers in
supply chains is a challenge where
the buying organisation has no
direct contractual relationship with
supplier sites, and special measures
must be taken to reach them. The
organisation should be prepared to
dedicate resource towards
supporting communication of its
mechanism and should discuss with
commercial partners methods of
dissemination to workers at the time
contracts are let.
–– LOCOG found the following useful:
‘it is important that
commercial partners
disclose how their own
processes work, so that
their effectiveness can be
verified’.
j See separate micro-report on operation of the
worker hotline
8
–– Producing posters in local
languages and requiring
commercial partners to post
these in factories.
–– Ensuring that commercial
partners’ staff making visits to
factories, such as buyers or
auditors, verify that details are
visible.
–– Ensuring that commercial
partners provide training to
workers and factory
management about the
mechanism (this should be
undertaken before production
of event-related products
commences).
–– Encouraging international
unions and NGOs to
communicate with their affiliates
in sourcing countries.
–– Effort should be made to identify
organisations representative of
workers in sourcing countries,
especially those more likely to
support complaints.
Communications should be sent to
these organisations asking them to
raise any issues with the event
organiser/buying organisation
directly and immediately after
becoming aware of these issues.
–– Documents and information
concerning the Complaint
Mechanism should be as
prominent as possible on the
website, and key documents
should be translated into the main
languages of sourcing countries.
In LOCOG’s case, an explanation
in the form of Frequently Asked
Questions (FAQs) was available
on the LOCOG website (see
Appendix 3), along with a
summary in the LOCOG
Sustainable Sourcing Code, and
details of how to make a
complaint (available in English
and Basic Chinese).
Avoiding duplication with existing
processes
The operation of the CDRM sought to
avoid duplication with external
complaint or grievance mechanisms
where these already existed in
factories (for example, via a brand
operated hotline). Where there are
existing mechanisms, adding another
process can simply create confusion.
However, it is important that
commercial partners disclose how
their own processes work, so that
their effectiveness can be verified.
Issues raised and dealt with under
these mechanisms can then form part
of regular reporting by commercial
partners to the event organiser/
buying organisation on how they are
fulfilling their responsibilities.
Receipt and recording of complaints
The first phase of the CDRM relied
on timely and effective receipt and
internal communication of complaints
within LOCOG and to the
independent organisation managing
the process. Important lessons from
this phase were:
–– Have a single dedicated email
address available for complaints.
–– Have a dedicated phone line/text
message/social media contact
point in key sourcing countries
available to workers, staffed by
knowledgeable people able to
provide advice on employment
issues, as well as to recognise
serious complaints about breaches
of standardsj.
–– Have a dedicated staff member
within the event organiser or
buying organisation with
experience of supply chain labour
issues who is responsible for
monitoring complaints and acting
on behalf of the organisation.
–– Accept that some more complex
complaints will take a number of
months to resolve and be
prepared to commit staff time and
resources over a considerable
period.
–– Create a case management
process to ensure clear
designation of responsibility and
recording of all relevant
communication and documentation
from parties.
–– Worker complaints can come at
any time during the production or
even post-production period, but
for high-profile events
organisations, complaints from
labour standards advocates may
be linked to their own campaigns
and are likely to be timed to
maximise publicity in the run-up to
an event. Event organisers should
ensure resources are available at
these busy periods.
Initial analysis and determining
whether complaint is in scope
As soon as a complaint was received,
it was ‘scoped’ to determine whether
‘Develop clear guidelines
on how media
allegations will be
addressed’.
it was covered by the mechanism.
This involved checking with LOCOG,
complainants and commercial
partners that it related to a good or
service provided to, or licensed by,
LOCOG. Generally, this phase could
be undertaken in a few days or a
week at most. However, some lessons
from this phase were:
–– Have clear guidelines on what
constitutes a complaint for the
mechanism (ie what is ‘in scope’),
particularly in terms of the
standards covered and
commercial activities undertaken
by suppliers that may be unrelated
to the event organiser/buying
organisation.
–– Define the basic information
required from complainants,
particularly accurate information
about the exact location of their
workplace, the period to which
the complaint related and the
specific allegations, and gather
this on a complaint form available
in various formats (see LOCOG’s
complaint form in Appendix 2).
–– Develop clear guidelines on how
media allegations will be
addressed, in terms of whether
they will be regarded as
complaints, or as information that
should be pursued with the
commercial partner as part of
ongoing due diligence about
compliance with contractual
requirements.
–– Ensure good communication within
the event organiser or buying
organisation between staff
responsible for labour standards
compliance and commercial staff
who manage relationships with
contracted suppliers and supplier
sites that will be affected by
complaints.
Addressing media allegations
LOCOG suppliers faced a number of press stories alleging breaches of
labour standards. While differing from third-party complaints in that there
was no complainant with whom to enter into dialogue, LOCOG found that
press stories often contained the same level of detail as complaints and
could be dealt with using some of the principles underpinning the complaint
mechanism (for example, expecting a full information response from the
commercial partner, and using a third party to investigate as necessary).
The existence of the semi-outsourced CDRM also enabled LOCOG’s
communications team to benefit from specialist support on labour issues.
For example, in relation to a media story about standards in a Cambodian
factory, LOCOG was able to gather information about working conditions
with support from the third-party experts.
In a separate case, involving allegations of multiple non-compliances at a
range of factories producing London 2012 licensed goods for adidas in
Indonesia, the company responded with detailed findings and proposed
corrective actions based on internal investigations. LOCOG sought to
ensure that the investigation process was rigorous by sending a specialist
from an independent party to shadow adidas’s investigation process, and
also by commissioning separate worker interviews to verify the information
on working conditions supplied by the company. On this basis, LOCOG
was in a more informed position to make a public statement about the
allegations (see Appendix 5).
9
‘To maintain momentum
identify the issues on
which both parties can
agree and focus the
discussion only on the
issues where there is
disagreement’.
Information provision and
investigation
When complaints were accepted as
falling within the scope of the
mechanism, the commercial partner
was asked to respond to the
allegations. They were encouraged
to provide relevant up-to-date
information from audits, to undertake
their own internal investigation or, if
they were inexperienced in this, to
commission a third-party
investigation. The purpose was to
identify those issues where there
might be agreement and therefore
immediate action, and those where
the facts were in dispute and where
discussion between the parties
should be focused. Some lessons
from this phase were:
–– Commercial partners should
provide speedy and complete
information, based on thorough
enquiry into the issues. Where
commercial partners have little
experience of addressing
complaints, they benefit from clear
guidance on what is expected of
them, and advice on robust
procedures they can adopt to look
into the validity of complaints.
–– Where complainants are
represented by international
advocacy organisations, it is
important to ensure that they have
good communication with the
complainant in the sourcing
country. Communication can also
be opened with organisations that
can provide accurate and timely
information on the situation in the
specific factory or region.
–– Enquiry and investigation by
commercial partners can be
sufficient to enable some
complaints issues to be agreed
and closed off quickly. For
example, in some cases,
investigation enabled agreement
on certain issues such as health
and safety breaches, with resultant
corrective actions. Even where
there was not agreement on the
actual substance of the complaint,
enquiries often revealed
shortcomings in management
processes that could be addressed
by promoting improved systems
(for example, improved recording
of wages and social security
payments).
10
–– Initial information gathering can
generally be completed within a
month, though follow-up
information can be requested from
either party as the case evolves.
Mediation
Following receipt of information from
both parties, LOCOG sought to
promote discussion and dialogue.
This phase was facilitated by the
independent manager of the process.
Some important lessons were:
–– A more successful outcome will be
reached where all parties to the
complaint can meet in person or
by teleconference to talk about the
issues, rather than communicating
by email.
–– It is very difficult for individual
workers to participate in the
mediated process, it was better
suited to ‘group’ and campaignbased complaints.
–– All relevant information should be
shared with both parties prior to
mediation so all sides are fully
briefed. However, ground rules
about confidentiality of
information and disclosures to the
media should be agreed at the
start of the mediation process.
–– Priority issues and initial positions
on these should be clarified with
both parties prior to mediation to
make the best use of the time
available. Prioritisation of issues
may leave some more minor issues
unaddressed.
–– Initial mediation can be conducted
while information is still being
gathered in terms of identifying
‘quick wins’ on issues that have
been addressed or clarified and
therefore do not need pursuing.
–– During meditation, a successful
technique to maintain momentum
is to identify the issues on which
both parties can agree and to
focus the discussion only on the
issues where there is
disagreement.
–– Mediation and dialogue can be
more effective if conducted as
near as possible to the location of
the complainant.
–– Once communication channels are
open and a degree of trust
established, some issues are best
addressed though bilateral
dialogue between parties, rather
than requiring external facilitation.
‘Allow flexibility in the
choice of investigation
process’.
–– The mediation phase can be
relatively lengthy (up to three
months) depending on availability
of parties and the complexity of
the issues being addressed. It is
important to maintain momentum
over such a lengthy period by
maintaining communication and
setting clear goals, actions and
milestones.
–– The opportunities for dialogue can
lead to separate discussions
between parties and to wider
agreements covering issues
outside the specific scope of the
complaint (see box below).
Mediation in action
In response to a complaint from trade unions in the Philippines about
conditions in factories supplying adidas, LOCOG set up a meeting in
Cebu. This was mediated in person by a senior Ergon staff member, and
attended by senior adidas staff, factory representatives, Philippine unions,
international trade union representatives and international NGOs. The
meeting identified the priority issues and enabled discussion of proposed
actions. Mediation conference calls continued after the meeting to further
clarify issues and resolve particular items. A face-to-face follow-up meeting
between the local parties mediated by a representative of the Philippines
Department of Labour and Employment – supported remotely by Ergon
– sought to promote further agreement and action. The aim is for the
dialogue to continue locally after LOCOG’s role has ended.
Collateral dialogue – expanding positive impact
beyond complaints
In the Philippines, alongside the meeting facilitated by Ergon for LOCOG,
the parties agreed a separate parallel meeting between unions,
international brands beyond those with commercial relationships with
LOCOG, suppliers and government to discuss wider issues around freedom
of association and worker rights within Export Processing Zones. This
resulted in a Memorandum of Cooperation on further dialogue on the
promotion of freedom of association and implementation of labour laws
and standards in the apparel industryk.
Separately, following discussions with the Playfair 2012 Campaign in the
context of the complaints mechanism, LOCOG also signed an agreement
with the TUC (UK) covering wider public disclosure of sourcing factories,
enhanced communication with workers about their rights, training for
workers at selected suppliers, establishment of a worker hotline in China
and enhanced legacy materialsl.
Independent investigations
Where there was no agreement
between parties on substantive issues
or where commercial parties were
unable or unwilling to undertake their
own internal enquiries, the CDRM
allowed for the conduct of
independent investigations. Key
learnings included:
k http://www.industriall-union.org/improvingworking-conditions-in-philippines-epzs
l LOCOG: taking action to ensure respect for
workers’ rights in global supply chains:
Agreement between The London Organising
Committee of the Olympic Games and
Paralympic Games and Trades Union Congress
on behalf of Playfair 2012 Campaign,
21 February 2012
11
–– It is important to allow flexibility in
the choice of investigation
process. For example, where a
complaint relates to a critical issue
such as child labour or fire safety,
there may be no time to go
through an information sharing
phase and the process should
move straight to an investigation.
In one case for LOCOG, this
allowed immediate remediation to
take place and on-site monitoring
that the remediation was carried
out.
–– A commercial partner or their
supplier should be allowed to
follow their own internal
investigation processes, so long as
these are assessed to be rigorous
and appropriate (for example,
they involve independent worker
interviews).
–– Where an independent
investigation is used, it is important
to use an expert organisation
acceptable to all sides and to set
‘In total, 74 corrective
actions or other
outcomes were agreed’.
out clear terms of reference and a
reporting framework, including the
role of the investigator in
determining and monitoring any
corrective actions.
–– Contracts with commercial
partners should explicitly require a
commercial partner to pay for any
necessary investigations.
–– Investigations should be conducted
quickly and the results circulated
in a timely manner to avoid
uncertainty.
Monitoring options
LOCOG used or facilitated the following monitoring and investigation
techniques in relation to different cases:
–– Advising commercial partners and suppliers on appropriate investigation
methods they could pursue.
–– Methodologies proposed by commercial partners.
–– Commissioning a specialist third party to shadow a commercial partner’s
investigation in Indonesia to verify its rigour.
–– Commissioning worker interviews to verify the findings from a
commercial partner’s own worker interviews.
–– Commissioning an investigation from a specialist social auditor into
conditions at factories in China.
Corrective actions and other
outcomes
The CDRM was designed to promote
agreement on solutions. In practice,
many of these solutions were
formulated as corrective actions to
address particular problems within
factories, such as improvements to
wage payment systems or recording
of hours worked. However, there were
a range of other outcomes agreed
that addressed complainants’
concerns, including training for
management and workers, and the
opening of dialogue between unions
and employers. In total, 74 corrective
actions or other outcomes were
agreed. The issue where agreement
was most contested was living wagem.
Lessons from this stage included:
m Payment of a living wage refers to a wage that
meets basic needs and enables some
discretionary spending. It is a provision of the ETI
Base Code and several other international codes
of labour practice. However, while the concept is
generally understood, there is no general
agreement on methods of calculation, actual
payment levels or implementation.
12
–– Both parties should be
encouraged to put forward
practical solutions rather than
simply registering complaints or
stating their position.
–– Be open-minded and flexible on
what constitutes an acceptable
outcome to a complaint.
–– The more sustainable outcomes
involve changes to processes and
systems or training for workers
and managers.
–– The buying organisation or event
organiser should have resources
available to advise commercial
partners on best practice in
implementing corrective actions,
particularly where they have
––
––
––
––
––
little experience of monitoring
labour standards.
A time period and monitoring plan
must be assigned to all corrective
actions and other outcomes,
including responsibility for
monitoring.
While some actions can be
implemented almost immediately,
others will be implemented over a
number of months. Commercial
brands can maintain oversight
over this period, but for timelimited event organisers, it is
desirable that monitoring is
delegated to the parties involved,
where they agree, or to another
commercial partner that may have
a longer ongoing relationship with
a supplier site.
A local NGO (based on a
partnership established during the
development period, as discussed
above) can be used for support
with monitoring the
implementation of corrective
action plans.
Where corrective actions arising
from complaints are not being
implemented by commercial
partners within reasonable
timescales, the buying
organisation or event organiser
should have a clear escalation
strategy, in line with its contractual
conditions.
Where supplier sites are reluctant
to respond to allegations, it is
‘First occasion in which
an Olympic and
Paralympic Games
Organising Committee
or any event organiser
had operated a
complaints or grievance
system’.
important to identify other
customers that have similar
standards and to share information
with them insofar as commercial
confidentiality allows, in order to
build broader leverage and
communicate a shared set of
expectations.
Public reporting
LOCOG gave a commitment in the
Code to reporting on the number
and type of complaints as well as the
outcomes. This case study forms part
of that commitment. However, several
other statements were also issued as
complaints were dealt with. These
are listed in Appendices 4 and 5.
Conclusions
This was the first occasion in which
an Olympic and Paralympic Games
Organising Committee or any event
organiser had operated a complaints
or grievance system. Indeed, beyond
some multi-stakeholder labour rights
initiatives, few organisations have put
any such system in place. The CDRM
was therefore very much a living,
learning process.
LOCOG found the CDRM to be a
valuable part of fulfilling its
commitment to sustainability, in terms
of implementing its standards and
addressing its responsibilities towards
workers in its supply chain. The
mechanism was untested on other
sustainability issues.
LOCOG faced particular challenges
as both a temporary purchasing/
licensing operation with time-bound
commercial relationships, but also
one with an extremely high public
profile rightly attracting scrutiny. The
semi-outsourced model proved an
effective means of bringing in
expertise and independence to a
sensitive and contested policy area.
The CDRM provided a means for
addressing complaints arising from
campaigning organisations in an
even-handed and participative
manner, resulting in several
improvements in relationships
between worker representatives and
employers that should prove to be
sustainable beyond LOCOG’s
lifetime. These results were achieved
in a way that did not divert LOCOG’s
limited staff resources from what
13
would always be their main task –
delivering the Olympic and
Paralympic Games.
The CDRM was also valuable in
resolving a number of individual
worker complaints at factory level,
resulting in improvements in
conditions and management systems.
These, too, should represent a legacy
that lasts beyond LOCOG.
An important outcome of the process
was the engagement of stakeholders
and complainants, particularly
national and international trade
unions and supplying factories, in the
process. The involvement of parties
beyond commercial partners and the
direct engagement of complainants
in not only making allegations but
seeking practical solutions was a
notable result.
As a pilot process, the operation of
the CDRM offers some important
lessons for other organisations.
These have been itemised in this
case study. Overall, for all
organisations – event organisers,
brands and suppliers – the CDRM
demonstrated that this sort of process
can prove a significant supplement
to the more standard social audit
processes, both for identifying
certain difficult or intractable
problems impacting on workers, and
for providing a space for discussion
and agreement enabling positive
and sustainable outcomes.
14
Footwear
Apparel
Publications
Guangzhou Tien
Sung Sporting Goods
Co. Ltd. Amerseas
Alcan
Golden Bear
adidas
Rio Tinto
adidas
Icon Live
Carlton Books
adidas
adidas
Time Out
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Totals
Publications
Yancheng Rainbow
Arts & Crafts
Sintex (Metrowear Inc Apparel
and Mactan Apparel)
Souvenirs
Sewtech Toys Co
(Starlight)
Golden Bear
2
15,708
2,045
N/A
4,000
1,663
160
4,408
N/A
2,500
Apparel
Smelting
192
300
440
No. of
workers
Soft toys
Soft toys
Badges
Victory Link Arts &
Jewellery
Honav
1
Sector
Supplier/factory (if in
public domain)
Commercial partner
No.
Appendix 1: Summary of complaints received
NGO report
Source of complaint
NGO report and
international union
complaint
International union
complaint
NGO report and
international union
complaint
Press allegation
China,
Shenzhen
Indonesia
Indonesia
China,
Dongguan
Worker hotline
Local union complaint
Local union complaint
Worker hotline
China,
Worker hotline
Guangdong
Philippines,
Cebu
Canada
China,
Guangzhou
China,
Jiangsu
China,
NGO report
Guangdong
China
Production
country,
region
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
In
scope?
Allegations disputed
n/a
Complaint closed
Worker left
CAP agreed,
verification ongoing
CAP agreed,
verification ongoing
n/a
CAP agreed,
verification ongoing
CAP agreed,
verification ongoing
Factory closed
CAP agreed,
verification ongoing
Outcome
74
tba
n/a
n/a
n/a
2
14
n/a
13
15
n/a
30
No. of
remedial
actions
Appendix 2: LOCOG Sustainable Sourcing Code:
Complaint and Dispute Resolution Process
Complaint Form
This form is for making a complaint about a breach of the standards set out
in LOCOG’s Sustainable Sourcing Code.
It is important that you read the full explanation of LOCOG’s Complaints
Process before completing this form. This will provide you with important
guidance on what you should expect from the Complaints Process.
Please provide as much information and detail as you can to assist us in
looking into your complaint. You may not be able to complete all questions.
Please attach any supporting information about the problem.
If you wish your identity to be kept confidential, please indicate this in
section 4 below. If not, information on this form may be shared with all
parties to the complaint.
1. Worksite information
Name of your factory or
worksite
Address
Factory phone number
2. Employer information
Name of the employer/factory
owner
Address
Country
Phone number
Website (if known)
Name of ultimate owner of
factory/employer (if different)
3. LOCOG product or supplier
Name of the supplier or
contractor to LOCOG (if
known)
Please identify the product or
service being supplied to
LOCOG (provide as much
detail as possible)
15
4. Contact information for complainant
Your name
Your organisation (if you are
complaining on behalf of
others)
Your address
Your phone number
Your email (if available)
Do you want to remain
anonymous?
Yes
No
If you choose to remain anonymous, your details will remain confidential.
Otherwise they may be shared with other parties to the complaint.
5. Please explain the Sustainable Sourcing Code violation that has occurred
in as much detail as possible.
–– Please include date(s) when the incident or problem occurred,
–– whether this problem is continuing,
–– a short description of the issue and
–– the impact of the problem.
Feel free to attach any additional information.
6. Have you already raised this issue, for example, by raising a grievance
with the factory management, or reporting to a buyer, a legal official or
court, a trade union, an NGO or an international organisation?
If so, what was the outcome?
7. Remedy
What do you think should be done to rectify the problem?
8. Are there any organisations you know about that are familiar with the
problem who LOCOG should contact?
If so, please provide their name(s), email addresses, phone number(s),
and any other available contact information.
What to do next
Name(s) of organisation
This form should be sent to
LOCOG either:
Key contact
By email
By fax
By post
LOCOG will contact you as soon as
possible to let you know how it
intends to deal with your complaint.
You should expect to receive
acknowledgement within one week.
Please contact LOCOG again if you
have not heard anything after this
time. Complaints sent by post may
take longer to process.
16
Address
Phone number
Email (if available)
9. Additional comments or recommendations
10. Date of this form
11. Signature (if posted)
Appendix 3: LOCOG Sustainable Sourcing Code:
Complaint and Dispute Resolution Process:
explanation and FAQs
LOCOG has a commitment to
operating a sustainable Olympic
Games and Paralympic Games and
has established sustainability policies
that its commercial partners,
suppliers, licensees and contractors
are expected to follow. These
policies are set out primarily in the
LOCOG Sustainable Sourcing Code.
The Complaint and Dispute
Resolution Process is designed to
assist LOCOG in fulfilling its
commitments and to provide a
means by which individuals and
organisations can bring to LOCOG’s
attention serious non-compliance
with LOCOG’s Sustainable Sourcing
Code. The process aims to ensure
that such complaints are investigated
and resolved in a manner which is
transparent and fair.
What is covered by the
Sustainable Sourcing
Code?
The LOCOG Sustainable Sourcing
Code (‘the Code’) contains various
environmental and social standards
for products and services procured
and licensed by LOCOG for the
2012 Olympic and Paralympic
Games. Suppliers and contractors
must ensure that the goods and
services they supply or produce
under licence are delivered in line
with the elements of the Code that
apply to them. The key components
of the Code are:
–– Labour practices: all workplaces
used for the manufacture or supply
Covered by Dispute Resolution Process
of products and services should
comply with the standards set out
in the Ethical Trade Initiative (ETI)
Base Code. Additionally, all
production sites should be
disclosed to LOCOG and all
production sites (final finishing and
assembly) should be registered on
the Supplier Ethical Data
Exchange (Sedex).
–– Health and safety: suppliers and
licensees must comply with health
and safety legislation, industry
standards and LOCOG policies.
–– In addition, LOCOG has policies
that promote the use of certified
goods such as Forest Stewardship
Council (FSC) timber and Fairtrade
goods (where available), and also
other standards relating to
packaging, waste, animal welfare,
food sustainability and diversity
and inclusion. Full details are
included in the Sustainable
Sourcing Code.
The Code applies to suppliers,
licensees, sponsors, commercial
partners and contractors that have a
contract with LOCOG, in relation to
the goods and services they are
directly supplying to LOCOG or
producing under licence. For
example, workers employed by a
catering contractor on the Olympic
site are covered by the Code.
However, workers employed by the
same catering contractor that are
producing food for a different client
are not covered. The following table
may be used as a guide for the
labour-related aspects of the Code.
It is not an exhaustive list.
Not covered by Dispute Resolution Process
Workers employed on Olympic sites by LOCOG, its
contractors or suppliers
Agency workers working on LOCOG-related contracts
Workers in supply chain producing goods for national
Olympic teams, but not contracted by LOCOG
Workers in supply chain producing goods for supply to
LOCOG or London 2012 licensed products
Workers employed by LOCOG supplier or contractor but
not engaged in producing goods for supply to LOCOG
Products being supplied to LOCOG under contract
Products made by a LOCOG supplier, but which are not
being supplied to LOCOG
17
What will constitute a complaint
under the process?
A complaint is a report of a violation
by a LOCOG supplier, licensee or
contractor of an element of the Code
relevant to that supplier or contractor.
The complaint should be evidencebased. This means that the
complainant should be able to
produce sufficient information to
demonstrate the relevance and
seriousness of the complaint – there
is specific guidance on this, see
below.
Who can complain?
Any individual or organisation can
make a complaint so long as either
they are directly affected by the issue
or are representative organisations
that have a mandate to represent
individuals or communities who are
directly affected and have access to
first-hand knowledge of the
circumstances giving rise to the
complaint.
How can a complaint be made?
We encourage use of the complaint
form – this can also be downloaded
from the LOCOG website and
emailed, faxed or posted. This
contains all the basic information
required and so filling in the form will
speed up the process of dealing with
the complaint.
You can also phone LOCOG.
What information is required by
LOCOG?
The complaint should contain the
following basic information:
–– Name of the LOCOG supplier/
contractor and employer: the
normal trading name of the
company providing products or
services to LOCOG and the name
of the workers’ employer (if
different) or any sub-contractor.
–– Name of work site: including
information to allow identification
of specific location of factory,
warehouse or unit.
–– Link with LOCOG product or
service: description of product or
service being supplied, with as
much detail as possible: for
example, blue child’s T-shirt with
2012 logo, rather than T-shirt.
–– Alleged Code breach: the element
of the Sustainable Sourcing Code
being breached, a short
18
description of the nature of the
breach, any supporting evidence,
and date or period when the
alleged breach occurred.
–– Contact point: name and full
contact details of individual or
organisation making the
complaint. If the complaint is
being handled on behalf of others,
provide the contact details for the
originators of the complaint and
how they can be contacted by
LOCOG.
–– Confidentiality: whether the
complainant or a party to the
complaint must remain anonymous
and the reasons (see below).
Ideally, the following additional
information should also be included.
If it is not provided initially, LOCOG
will contact the complainant to
gather this information in order to
assess whether the complaint should
be taken forward.
–– The scale of the alleged problem:
how many workers or products are
involved? How has the community
been impacted? Is there
immediate physical danger? How
serious is the Code breach?
–– Supporting information: detail of
where corroborating information
can be found.
–– Is the grievance being pursued by
other means? For example, has a
formal grievance with the
employer been lodged, or a court
case been filed?
–– Has the issue been raised before?
For example, has the issue been
the subject of previous complaints
to the commercial third-party
company or via another
complaints mechanism?
–– What is the preferred solution:
what do the complainants want to
happen to remedy the situation?
–– Other relevant organisations: any
other organisations that might
have useful information directly
relevant to the complaint together
with their contact details.
–– Local complexities: for example,
ethnic, cultural or political issues
that will have a bearing on the
alleged violation and how it can
be investigated.
Is the complaint confidential?
One of LOCOG’s objectives is that
the process of dealing with
complaints is transparent so that all
parties have confidence in it. Unless
a good case is made otherwise, all
information received from each party
(the complainant and the subject of
the complaint) will be provided to all
other parties to the complaint. If there
is sensitive information, the preferred
course is to agree with all parties on
how to deal with this.
In principle, details of individual
employees or complainants should
be provided. However, LOCOG
recognises the danger that workers
making complaints about their
conditions may be victimised. Where
this is the case, this should be made
clear to LOCOG at the earliest stage
and appropriate steps will be taken
to protect the identity of individuals.
In these circumstances LOCOG will
not disclose the identities of workers
to employers in such a way that
could open them to intimidation or
victimisation.
However, LOCOG must be able to
contact the complainant to verify the
details of any allegation so it will not
be possible to address anonymous
complaints.
What will happen when a complaint
is made?
LOCOG’s preferred general
approach to all complaints is based
on an initial assessment of the
evidence, followed by mediation or
conciliation between the parties to
arrive at a mutually-agreed resolution
of the complaint in the quickest
possible timeframe. Finding solutions
that improve working conditions,
environmental impact or product
safety is the paramount aim. This
involves several stages:
–– Initial assessment of the complaint
–– Information gathering from parties
–– Consultation and mediation on the
basis of information supplied
–– Independent investigation if no
agreement is reached
How quickly will complaints be
handled?
It is important that complaints are
submitted to LOCOG as early as
they are known about, and that they
are dealt with quickly so that
breaches of LOCOG’s standards can
be rectified and workers and others
can benefit from the application of
the Code as soon as possible.
19
LOCOG will therefore seek to assess
complaints, and bring parties
together within a short timescale.
Deadlines for parties to respond to
information requests and to attend
meetings will be agreed, but it is not
possible to set a predetermined fixed
timetable as complaints will vary in
scale, complexity and geographical
origin. It is hoped that most can be
dealt with in a matter of weeks rather
than months. LOCOG reserves the
right to take appropriate steps if it
believes that one party or the other is
delaying the process unnecessarily.
What will LOCOG do when it
receives a complaint?
LOCOG will acknowledge receipt of
the complaint. LOCOG will then
assess whether it can be accepted as
a legitimate complaint. To be
accepted, the complaint must:
–– Relate to a LOCOG contractor,
supplier or licensee and involve
the production or supply of
products or services to LOCOG,
or licensed products, for use
during the 2012 Games.
–– Relate to a product and tier of the
supply chain that is traceable
directly to LOCOG.
–– Relate to a standard or clause
referenced in the Sustainable
Sourcing Code.
–– Contain sufficient information to
enable LOCOG to assess the
substance of the complaint.
If there is insufficient information
provided by the complainant initially,
LOCOG will ask for additional
information or clarification about the
precise nature of the complaint.
LOCOG will identify the parties to
the complaint. Depending on the
nature of the complaint, these parties
could include the complainant, the
subject of the complaint, workers
directly affected by the issues raised,
groups representing or advocating
on behalf of those directly affected,
and other actors in the supply chain.
LOCOG will take a view on whether
the complaint is accepted.
Acceptance does not imply that
LOCOG considers the complaint has
merit, merely that it falls within the
scope of the Code and the
complaints process and warrants
further examination.
The complainant will be informed
about whether the complaint has
been accepted. If the complaint is
not accepted, the reasons will be
given to the complainant.
What happens if a complaint is
accepted for examination?
If the complaint is accepted for
further examination, all parties will
be contacted and the process to be
pursued will be explained. The
substance of the complaint and all
relevant documents will be
communicated to the subject of the
complaint for their response. They
will be given a defined period of
time to respond.
How should the subject of the
complaint respond?
The subject of the complaint will
usually be the company licensed by
LOCOG or supplying LOCOG with
goods or services. The nature of the
complaint may relate to them directly
or to one of their own suppliers.
LOCOG will gather information
about the supplier or contractor’s
worksite or the practices of the
employer of workers providing
services. This information will come
from the supplier, employer or
contractor’s own records. However,
this may not be sufficient to allow
resolution of the complaint.
Therefore, the subject will be asked
to provide specific information about
the complaint. The subject of the
complaint may use various means to
gather information according to the
nature of the complaint.
The subject may choose to implement
an internal investigation using its own
staff. Equally, it could choose to
commission an external investigation
from an independent third party.
Whatever method is chosen, the key
factor is to ensure that the process
used produces information that
enables a fully informed further
discussion of the complaint based on
the full facts of the case. In order for
this to be the case, the subject of the
complaint is expected to share its
information-gathering methodology
with LOCOG and the complainants,
prior to undertaking the investigation,
so that the credibility of the proposed
methodology can be assessed.
It is important that any investigation
should gather information from a
20
variety of sources, including from
workers and their representatives.
Where relevant, adequate numbers of
workers should be interviewed using
methodologies that enable them to
speak freely. Site management and
other interested parties should also be
asked for their views.
All information gathered by the subject
of the complaint, including any
formal investigation reports, will be
shared with all parties, unless there is
a strong case for confidentiality.
Resolution at an early stage
At this stage, it may be possible that
the complaint goes no further. For
example, there may be a formal or
legal process that can be pursued,
for example, an internal grievance
procedure, or Employment Tribunal
or other legal procedure. LOCOG
will encourage these avenues to be
taken where they are practicable
and are likely to lead to a result,
rather than setting up a parallel
process.
The subject of the complaint may, on
the basis of its own investigations,
suggest a remedy which is agreeable
to the complainants or the affected
parties. Equally the complainants
may, on the basis of the information
provided by the subject, agree that
there is no merit in pursuing the
complaint.
How will mediation be used?
It is a fundamental principle behind
LOCOG’s process that the parties
should be encouraged to reach
agreement on the resolution of the
complaint. Therefore, complaints
brought under this process will be
addressed using a conciliated and
mediated process.
The conciliator or mediator’s role will
be neutral and will provide an
opportunity for each party to discuss
the issues raised. Mediation may be
offered by a third party agreed by
both parties to the complaint.
For mediation to succeed, both
parties should understand what the
process of mediation entails and
should be committed to pursuing the
issue via mediation. LOCOG will
provide draft Terms of Reference for
the mediator though these will be
subject to agreement by the parties.
What will mediation consist of?
The mediation role can operate at
different stages:
–– As soon as a complaint is received
and accepted, in terms of seeking
common ground between the
parties, identifying the key areas
of disagreement and agreeing on
the on-going process.
–– Facilitating mediated discussion on
the basis of information provided
by each party. This could involve
further clarification of the issues,
exploring potential remedies and
mapping the next steps.
–– Providing a formal mediator after
an external investigation has been
undertaken.
Mediation may also occur at
different locations. Some mediation
may be possible by phone or email,
certainly at the start of the process.
However, mediated meetings may
well be necessary. These will be
convened at the most appropriate
location for all parties. For
complaints relating to the UK, these
will be in London.
Where meetings are necessary, each
party will have the opportunity to
explain their views prior to
discussion. However, the mediator
will be responsible for agreeing with
the parties the methods and
processes to be used for mediation.
Mediation procedures will be
informal and confidential in order to
encourage open discussion.
It is important that persons taking
part in the mediation have the
authority to reach any agreement
and to implement any agreement.
What happens if mediation fails?
It is hoped that initial conciliation or
mediation on the basis of information
provided by the complainant and the
subject can result in a solution.
However, where this is not possible
or where progress is unacceptably
slow, and if there are considered to
be sufficiently serious outstanding
issues under the terms of the LOCOG
Code, the next step will be to
commission an independent
investigation of the complaint
undertaken by the third party.
21
Who will carry out an independent
investigation?
The investigation will be undertaken
by an independent body, agreeable
to the parties and to LOCOG, which
has expertise in the issues raised by
the complaint. LOCOG will provide
a list of possible organisations and
individuals.
What will the investigation involve?
The investigation will be undertaken
using defined Terms of Reference
(ToR), disclosed to the parties, and
will be conducted speedily. The
exact content of the ToR will depend
on the nature of the complaint; for
example, its location, the type of
alleged breach, and the size of the
facility or service provider involved.
However, the investigation will
usually involve a site visit, interviews
with management and workers
(on-site and off-site where relevant),
interviews with relevant community
groups and regulators, and
documentary review as necessary.
It may be the case that further
mediation, at a site level, can be
undertaken as part of the
investigation visit. This would be
allowed for in the ToR.
The subject of the complaint is
expected to pay for the investigation.
The investigation will result in a
report, available to all parties, with
findings of fact and recommendations
for next steps or potential
remediation. However, the
investigation will not make final
determinations on the complaint.
What happens after the
investigation?
The parties to the complaint are
expected to use the investigation
findings as a further opportunity to
reach agreement, assisted by a
mediator. Unless it is determined that
the complaint has no merit,
agreement will usually result in some
form of remedial action to address
the issue being raised. This could
relate to a change in working
conditions, or a change in human
resource policy or process, or a
change in the process of manufacture
or type of good being supplied.
The parties will agree on a public
statement explaining the outcome of
the complaint.
How will remedial actions be
checked?
Depending on the type of remedial
action agreed, the parties will seek
to reach agreement on how this is to
be monitored and checked to ensure
that it is implemented within the
agreed timescale. LOCOG will
monitor the implementation of
agreed outcomes.
What happens if there is no
agreement between the parties?
If there is no agreement forthcoming
within a reasonable period of time,
LOCOG reserves the right to decide
on the outcome of the complaint. It
will do this on the basis of the
information supplied at all stages of
the complaint. LOCOG will
communicate its decision and the
reasons to all parties. If LOCOG
upholds the complaint, it will institute
appropriate action within its
contractual rights.
While LOCOG will make every effort
to facilitate agreed resolutions to
legitimate complaints in partnership
with suppliers and licensees, this
does not affect LOCOG’s contractual
rights and LOCOG may cease
trading with the supplier or licensee
in accordance with the terms of the
relevant contract or agreement.
How will complaints be
communicated publicly?
LOCOG will communicate, via its
website, how many complaints it has
22
received, the parties involved, and
the status of the complaint (ie subject
to mediation, being investigated).
However, until agreement or
determination about the complaint
has been achieved, it will not provide
any further detail as this could
compromise the mediation process.
There may be instances whereby this
reporting is restricted on the basis of
confidentiality agreements between
the parties.
The parties to the complaint will be
able to communicate that a
complaint has been lodged, but
should not make public statements
while the complaints procedure is
underway that could jeopardise the
prospects for a solution.
At the conclusion of the complaint,
LOCOG will either use the public
statement agreed by the parties, or
will write a short summary of the
complaint and the outcome. These
will be available publicly.
What happens if any party is
unhappy with the way the complaint
has been handled?
The party should raise the issue with
LOCOG, who will review the case
and communicate the information to
the Stakeholder Oversight
Committee. This comprises experts
drawn from different constituencies
and will meet regularly to review the
functioning of the process and make
recommendations for improvements.
Appendix 4: LOCOG response to allegations by the
Sun and Playfair 2012 Campaign regarding
working conditions in China
Date: 21 June 2012 (date originally
published on the London 2012
website)
Following allegations made in
January and February 2012
concerning labour standards in the
supply chain for production of
London 2012 licensed merchandise,
the London Organising Committee of
the Olympic Games and Paralympic
Games Ltd (LOCOG) instructed an
independent third party to carry out
a comprehensive investigation and
review, and promised to make the
outcome public. Summaries of the
process and findings are set out
below.
Description of allegations
1. On 19 January 2012, The Sun
newspaper (UK) published an article
with a broad range of allegations
concerning labour practices in the
Yancheng Rainbow Arts and Crafts
Company in China’s Jiangsu
province, which produces plush toys
for a UK-based licensee of LOCOG,
Golden Bear Products Ltd. The key
allegations included:
–– excessive working hours;
–– under- and delayed payment of
wages;
–– poor labour practice, for example,
in relation to health and safety
implementation; and
–– lack of awareness by workers of
their labour rights.
2. On 23 February 2012 the Playfair
2012 Campaign (Playfair) published
a report containing a broad range of
allegations of violations of the Ethical
Trading Initiative (ETI) Base Code in
two Chinese factories supplying
products to two LOCOG licensees –
Victory Link Arts & Jewelry Co., Ltd.
which supplied badges for Honav
UK Ltd, and Foshan City Nanhai
Area Sewtech Toys Co., Ltd
supplying plush toys to Golden Bear
Products Ltd. The allegations
concerned aspects relating to:
–– resignation procedures;
–– no right to seek worker
representation;
–– poor health and safety conditions
in the workplace;
23
–– excessive working hours; and
–– use of temporary employment.
3. Playfair provided LOCOG with an
advance copy of the report and
meetings were held with Playfair
representatives throughout the
process to keep them informed of
progress and to solicit their
assistance in resolving any
outstanding issues.
4. There was no individual
complainant in relation to any of the
factories. However, LOCOG decided
to use the principles of the complaint
mechanism to investigate the
allegations and to promote dialogue
seeking resolution of any identified
outstanding issues.
Description of actions
5. For each complaint, an initial
assessment confirmed that the
factories identified were responsible
for producing London 2012 products
for a LOCOG approved licensee. In
addition, the issues identified, in
particular the allegations of labour
violations, related to issues covered
by the ETI Base Code, which is the
standard that informs part of
LOCOG’s Sustainable Sourcing
Code.
6. During February, LOCOG carried
out consultations with all parties to
clarify the allegations. The factory
management at the aforementioned
factories refuted a number of the
detailed allegations and all parties
agreed to engage an independent
third-party specialist to visit the
factories. Detailed Terms of
Reference were drawn up and
agreed. In summary these were: to
investigate the validity of the
allegations; to understand the
workers’ perspectives on general
working conditions; and to propose
remedial actions.
7. The visits to all factories identified
took place in late February/early
March, once production had
recommenced following the Chinese
New Year. The visits contained the
following elements: a visual
inspection of the workplace; a review
of key documents, including wage
and working hour records; interviews
with management; and confidential
interviews with randomly selected
workers. In general the licensees
were cooperative and engaged with
factory management during the
investigations.
8. At the completion of the visits, the
findings of the investigation were
shared with all parties, including
factory management. On the basis of
these findings, the licensees,
in collaboration with factory
management, developed corrective
action plans identifying each
substantiated allegation and issue
that needed addressing, the
preventative and corrective action to
be undertaken, and the timescale in
which it must be completed. A time
limit of one month was given for
approval of this plan by all parties.
Description of outcomes
Case
Outcome
Yancheng Rainbow Arts and Crafts
Company and Dafeng Chuangyi Arts
and Crafts Co. Ltd (Golden Bear
Products Ltd.)
In the course of the investigation a second site, owned by the same
management, and also responsible for production of London 2012
merchandise, was identified. In order to ensure a robust and encompassing
process, LOCOG decided to include this second factory, Dafeng Chuangyi
Arts and Crafts Co., Ltd, within the investigation.
Two sites with 76 and 116 workers
respectively
Factory management accepted the substance of allegations at both
factories and had already developed action plans and taken steps to
address some key areas of work including subcontracting and management
of temporary and student workers.
Yancheng Rainbow Arts and Crafts Company had also developed action
plans on the accurate recording of working hours and some health and
safety issues.
A number of areas were identified where the factory management
disagreed with the allegations or where they were yet to develop corrective
actions, in particular concerning some documentary inconsistencies
between different sources relating to wages and working hour records.
Nevertheless, the investigation has developed corrective action plans which
await final confirmation from the licensee and factory management. The
recommended actions acknowledge the need to:
–– raise worker awareness in relation to freedom of association issues,
through increased communication and training and improving worker
complaint mechanisms;
–– accurately record working hours by implementing systems and controls
to monitor and reduce working hours, ensure rest breaks and that
overtime is voluntary;
–– have strict and clear subcontracting mechanisms including developing
factory subcontracting management policies and assigning a senior staff
member to oversee these;
–– have robust student and temporary workers’ management systems,
through the keeping of personnel files for all workers, including
temporary workers and improving age verification mechanisms;
–– have clear responsibility for health and safety implementation, and
install fire hydrants and first aid boxes in dormitory areas; and
–– have robust human resource systems, including labour contracts and
annual leave requirements, as well as ensuring provision of clear and
detailed payslips to all workers and improve worker awareness of social
insurance benefits.
24
Case
Outcome
Victory Link Arts & Jewelry Co., Ltd.
(Honav UK Ltd.)
The third-party investigator identified a number of inconsistencies between
different sources of information relating to wages and working hour
records, and the factory management was unable to provide satisfactory
explanation for the inconsistencies. LOCOG has asked the licensee to work
with factory management to improve transparency on these two issues. In
other respects, the factory management was cooperative and has engaged
in the development of remediation action plans.
with 440 workers
The corrective action plan developed by the licensee, in collaboration with
factory management, addresses the need to:
–– ensure employment conditions meet the requirements of the ETI Base
Code and national law including an appropriate resignation process,
through the amendment of factory regulations; and regular inspection of
employment contracts to ensure they meet legal requirements;
–– ensure workers are fully aware of their rights to association and
representation, through increased communication, training of new
recruits and, it is hoped, better employee representation at union
meetings;
–– maintain a safe and healthy workplace, through the appointment of
health and safety representatives, use of guidelines, training of new
recruits and regular inspections of safety equipment;
–– have robust mechanisms in place for payment of wages, through the use
of bank transfers, detailed and clear payslips and a general
improvement of the wage system;
–– ensure all workers receive social security payments, through an overall
increase of social insurance contribution rate and improved worker
awareness of these benefits; and
–– establish mechanisms to manage juvenile workers, through registration
and separate management by HR to ensure they are not working in
hazardous positions.
Case
Outcome
Foshan City Nanhai Area Sewtech
Toys Co. (Golden Bear Products Ltd.)
Discussions began early in the process between Golden Bear and the Trades
Union Congress (TUC), with all parties agreeing to ensure a transparent
and unified approach to the situation. LOCOG agreed to step back from
the process to allow consultations to take place, but remained involved to
ensure that the process moved forward within an appropriate timescale.
with approximately 300 workers
Golden Bear was referred by the TUC to a local NGO in China in order
to seek their support for a corrective action plan in the factory concerned.
LOCOG asked a third-party independent specialist to liaise with the local
NGO to verify their capacity and resources. In the course of this, the local
NGO suggested that it was better for the third-party specialist to do this
work as it had more capacity to undertake advice and support on
corrective actions.
While the factory visit was being planned by the third-party specialist, the
factory informed Golden Bear that it was closing immediately due to the
serious illness of one of its owners and the loss of a major client. This was
not apparently related to the allegations made in the Playfair report or the
investigation by LOCOG. LOCOG approached the factory management to
have their third-party expert present during the factory closure in order to
verify that it was being conducted responsibly; however, the factory did not
accept this proposal on the grounds that the Chinese state authorities were
closely involved in the process and would not accept the presence of a
commercial third party. LOCOG has since received confirmation from
Golden Bear that the factory was closed in accordance with local
regulations and that all workers received full payment according to
applicable labour regulations, but were unable to verify this.
25
9. The corrective action plans
discussed above were developed
with, and agreed by, factory
management with the support of the
licensee, setting a time limit of three
months for the licensee to support
factory management with its
implementation. Longer-term
improvements have also been agreed
to. LOCOG will follow up with each
licensee on progress made against
implementation of these plans.
Additional outcomes
10. Arising out of discussions
between LOCOG and the TUC,
acting on behalf of Playfair, which
occurred prior to publication of the
report, an Agreement was signed on
21 February 2012, in which LOCOG
undertook to publicly disclose supply
chain locations; improve
communication to workers about their
rights and the complaints mechanism;
and pilot worker training, the content
of which would be agreed upon by
both LOCOG and Playfair.
11. Since December 2011, the
members of LOCOG’s Stakeholder
Oversight Group have met three times
to discuss the complaints’ process and
have provided important guidance to
26
LOCOG on the best approach to be
taken on the cases raised.
12. In addition, LOCOG
commissioned an independent
review of the ethical trading systems
of both Golden Bear and Honav. The
reviews highlighted a number of
opportunities for each licensee to
build on current processes and
systems to enable them to more
effectively meet ethical codes of
conduct, such as the ETI Base Code.
LOCOG also wanted to understand
what overall lessons could be learnt
to feed into a legacy review which
they will shortly be commissioning.
13. Honav have also recently been
appointed as an official licensee to
the Rio 2016™ Olympic and
Paralympic Games. The
recommendations of the independent
ethical trading systems review
commissioned by LOCOG will be
reflected in their contract with Rio
2016™. The Rio 2016 Organizing
Committee for the Olympic and
Paralympic Games will closely
monitor Honav’s progress in
implementing these recommendations
as part of their own supply chain
assurance programme.
Appendix 5: LOCOG response to allegations in the
Independent regarding labour non-compliances at
factories supplying adidas in Indonesia
Date: 23 August 2012 (date originally
published on the London 2012 website)
investigations. These shadow visits
included interviews with the trade
union representatives.
Description of allegations
1. On 14 April 2012, the Independent
newspaper in London published an
article containing a range of
allegations directed at adidas’s
Indonesian supplier factories in
general, together with issues specific
to certain factories. Nine factories
supplying LOCOG were cited, plus a
further adidas supplier that was not
involved in Olympic production.
These factories were: PT Pancaprima
Eka Brothers, PT Shyang Yao Fung, PT
Parkland World, PT Tung Mung Textile
Bintan, PT Panarub Industry, PT Tuntex
(Tanjung Priok Facility), PT Tuntex
(Cikupa 1 Facility), PT Pilar Sejati
Sejahtera, PT Golden Castle, PT
Golden Continental.
5. Finally, LOCOG commissioned a
separate independent third party to
conduct additional worker interviews
at four of the nine sites used for
LOCOG production. The purpose was
to gain a separate view of whether
the original allegations could be
substantiated, and therefore whether
the findings from adidas’s own
investigation and investigation process
were credible. These interviews took
place during May 2012.
2. The key allegations included:
–– excessive working hours;
–– wages below legal minimums;
–– problems with union recognition
and freedom of association;
–– verbal abuse;
–– low worker awareness of adidas
standards; and
–– poor labour practice, for example,
in relation to health and safety
implementation.
3. There was no individual
complainant in relation to any of the
factories. However, LOCOG and
adidas agreed to use the principles of
its Complaint and Dispute Resolution
Mechanism to investigate the
allegations and to promote solutions.
Description of actions
4. adidas undertook a full internal
investigation at the 10 factories using
its local Social and Environmental
Affairs team. These investigations,
conducted in April and May,
involved documentary reviews, and
worker interviews both on-site and
off-site. In addition, LOCOG
engaged an independent third party
to visit Indonesia to review the
adidas investigation process by
interviewing its social, environmental
and commercial staff and by
shadowing two of the on-site factory
27
6. adidas’s investigations resulted in
corrective and preventative action
plans agreed with the factory
management, where allegations
were substantiated. LOCOG
reviewed these plans. The findings
from the independent worker
interviews were shared with adidas
and amendments were made to
corrective action plans where
necessary. These plans included time
limits as appropriate.
Description of findings
7. In general, there was a strong
correlation between the findings from
adidas’s investigation and from the
independent worker interviews.
Nevertheless, various recommendations
were made for strengthening adidas’s
investigation processes following the
independent review.
8. Many of the most serious
allegations have not been
substantiated. However, some
allegations were found to be accurate
and to require remedial action.
9. Key findings were as follows:
–– Allegations related to nonpayment of minimum wages were
not substantiated.
–– At most factories, allegations
around lack of union recognition
and excessive working hours were
not substantiated. Where there
were issues identified at individual
factories, actions were agreed
related to support for ongoing
collective bargaining agreements
and improved production planning.
–– Issues related to lack of
awareness of the adidas worker
grievance hotline were
substantiated. Remedial actions
related to improved promotion
and communication of the hotline
were agreed.
–– In some of the factories, there
were issues with verbal abuse
from supervisors or workers feeling
under excessive pressure to reach
production quotas. adidas agreed
to implement training for
managers and supervisors on
harassment and abuse.
–– Both adidas’s investigations and
the independent worker interviews
revealed some additional issues at
each of the factories. These have
been addressed with appropriate
remedial actions which will be
subject to monitoring and review.
Acknowledgements
Peer review
Martin Cooke
Head of Membership Services, Ethical Trading Initiative
Scoping and project management of the LOCOG Sustainability Learning Legacy Programme was provided by Action Sustainability CIC.
Funded equally by Action Sustainability CIC and Defra.
This document and the official Emblems of the London 2012 Games are © London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games and Paralympic
Games Limited 2007–2012. All rights reserved.
For more information visit: learninglegacy.independent.gov.uk
28
Published December 2012
LOC2012/SUS/CS/0022