Asics Said It Helped Remedy Labor Abuse in Cambodia. Activists Disagree.
Labor advocates have poked holes at Asics’s claims that a prosecuted and jailed union leader at one of its Cambodian suppliers was reinstated to his former position following the overturning of his conviction—which would have seen him imprisoned for a year—and that factory management had nothing to do with the criminal charges that led to his arrest in the first place.
For the six months leading up to April 19, the same day his appeal was heard in court, Chea Chan sat behind bars facing what the Worker Rights Consortium (WRC) describes as “obviously false and retaliatory criminal charges“ that stemmed from his elected role as head of a newly formed independent union at Wing Star Shoes, which also supplies footwear to Muji. Neither Wing Star Shoes nor Muji responded to requests for comment.
More from Sourcing Journal
Asics, in an updated statement to Sourcing Journal after the Clean Clothes Campaign criticized the Japanese sportswear brand last week for failing to intervene in Wing Star Shoes’ alleged union-busting, said that the supplier did not file a criminal complaint accusing Chan of a “conspiracy to steal.” Asics also “proactively engaged” with Wing Star Shoes, confirming that the manufacturer gave Chan his job back following the court’s acquittal due to lack of evidence, it said. Wing Star Shoes, Asics added, is now holding active discussions with Chan’s representatives and Cambodia’s labor bureau over the wages Chan lost during his imprisonment, in accordance with the country’s labor law. Team Japan’s Olympics outfitter continues to monitor the situation as it unfolds, it said.
“In this regard, Asics has played a pivotal role in ensuring a fair and just resolution to this case,” the statement said. “We believe that our proactive engagement with Wing Star Shoes has ensured that Mr. Chan’s reinstatement was carried out swiftly and that the negative impact on him has been minimized.”
Asics said it has also maintained close communication with stakeholders such as the Cambodian Alliance of Trade Unions (CATU), which the new union is affiliated with, and the nonprofit Center for Alliance of Labor and Human Rights (CENTRAL), “in order to promote compliance with both legal and ethical standards.”
“Additionally, we note that the majority of the workers at Wing Star Shoes are unionized, with five unions represented,” Asics said. “Wing Star Shoes is committed to respecting workers’ rights and freedom of association, and we confirmed through a dialogue with Wing Star Shoes that it does not have any intention to interfere with the formulation of the new labor union.”
But Thulsi Narayanasamy, director of international advocacy at the WRC, says there are multiple discrepancies with Asics’s telling of what happened. Rather than return Chan to his previous role of mechanic, Wing Star Shoes placed him at the warehouse, where there are few fellow workers.
“This is often used as a tactic to isolate workers who may want to organize collectively for better working conditions,” she said. “Reinstatement means his old job back so the brands must ensure that this happens.”
Narayanasamy also said there is “concrete evidence” that Wing Star Shoes filed the criminal complaint against Chan, and that this “indisputable” fact was also cited in the court’s verdict. What made Chan’s case so deplorable, she said, was the fact it was filed on “false grounds,” putting him and his family, which includes three young children, through terrible and unnecessary hardship. Chan himself suffered through harsh, dirty and crammed prison conditions, with meager meals of rice and soup, the denial of his daily medication and no soap.
“It is enormously concerning to see suppliers for large brands freely utilizing the judicial system in a rights-repressing country like Cambodia to undermine basic worker rights,” Narayanasamy said. “Brands say they are committed to protecting rights in their supply chains but the reality is that suppliers like this can get away with barefaced violations like filing a false criminal case against a worker right after he is elected union president.”
Most of all, she looked askance at Wing Star Shoes’ purported respect for freedom of association. It was the supplier’s preponderance of alleged abusive labor practices, including what workers say are limited access to restrooms, that resulted in the need for a new union in the first place, she said. And it was only shortly after Chan’s appointment as union president that factory management began pressuring him to stop his organizing, Narayanasamy said, adding that there was even an attempt to bribe CATU into withdrawing its support for the group.
Wing Star Shoes may be open to the possibility of back-paying Chan for the wages he missed out on, but it has “outright denied” the demand to compensate him for the harm and suffering he and his family experienced, she said. Meanwhile, workers at Wing Star Shoes are “still fearful of retaliation for organizing, understandably, given what happened to Chan and the apparent impunity for such an egregious violation,” Narayanasamy said.
The case brings into focus the perennial question of whether brands should be held responsible for the welfare of the people who make their products when most of them don’t own the factories in question. And if so, to what extent should they be liable? It also underscores the challenges of operating within repressive regimes and asks how much brands are willing to tolerate in favor of low costs and quick turnarounds, particularly in a torpid economy where consumers have a tighter grip on their pocketbooks. Corporate accountability that goes beyond voluntary actions is still something that burgeoning legislation, like the European Union’s corporate sustainability due diligence directive, is trying to grapple with.
“When a worker was jailed previously in Cambodia, brands ensured that compensation was duly paid, yet Ascis and Muji have failed to ensure that their supplier does so,” Narayanasamy said. She was referring to Soy Sros, a trade union leader who was in jail for 55 days in 2020 after writing a Facebook post condemning her factory’s dismissal of workers during the pandemic.
“Failure to swiftly provide remedy by ensuring Chea Chan is reinstated to his previous position and duly paid compensation sends a message to workers that brands buying from Cambodia are not taking the commitments they make on paper seriously,” Narayanasamy added.
That Asics signed a recent American Apparel & Footwear Association urging the Cambodian government to drop its investigation into CENTRAL because it could be perceived as restricting freedom of association is something that the labor rights community has been trying to reconcile with Wing Star Shoes’ actions.
Asics, however, doesn’t see a disconnect, saying that it has taken—and continues to take—appropriate measures. As far as it’s concerned, its supplier code of conduct works to keep misbehavior in check. Other brands have said the same when similar circumstances arise—that is, if they acknowledge problems at all.
“Asics requires all of our factories to safeguard workers’ rights and commit to the principles of freedom of association in accordance with our supplier code of conduct, which is in line with international labor standards,” it said in the statement.