Main Page > 14 Red Flags  > ​​Alignment with International Standards > Red Flag 2

2. No Explicit Role for Rights Holders in Standard Setting

  • What this means 
  • Why investors should care
  • What to look for 
  • Checklist
<
>
Schemes that have direct links to rights holder organizations are better able to identify and respond to risks as they arise. According to the ISEAL’s Credibility Principles on “listening and learning” from stakeholders:
A credible sustainability system is inclusive and non-discriminatory. It empowers stakeholders to participate in decisions and hold the system to account. It involves a balanced and diverse group of stakeholders in decisions that will affect them. It strives to understand the context and perspectives of stakeholders who have been under-engaged or under-represented, and it creates opportunities to ensure their participation in decision-making. It provides clear and transparent feedback on stakeholder input and concerns. It has fair, impartial and accessible mechanisms for resolving complaints and conflicts. [2]
Several highly regarded studies documenting the shortcomings of MSIs recommend a more central role for rights holders—affected stakeholders who have an explicit claim on a more powerful actor who has a duty of care or “duty bearer”—in their design and/or implementation.[1]  (See Further Reading.) For more on what investors should expect of investee engagement with affected stakeholders as well as how they can conduct their own engagement, see the Stakeholder Engagement Guide, part of these HREDD Precision Tools.
Worker-led initiatives that have this feature, for example the Fair Food Campaign and Milk with Dignity, have demonstrated measurable improvements in working conditions over time (see What to Look For). In such cases where there is an explicit role for rights holders to contribute meaningfully in the design of the scheme, the absence of a reference to international human rights standards (Red Flag 1) may not be a concern.
[1] Genevieve LeBaron et al., Forced Labour Evidence Brief: Social Auditing and Ethical Certification (Re:Structure Lab, July 2022), 79,
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/6055c0601c885456ba8c962a/t/62d746146f5dc5205a17621c/1658275349325/ReStructureLab_SocialAuditingandEthicalCertification_July2022.pdf.; Jessica L. Decker Sparks et al., “Worker-less social responsibility: How the proliferation of voluntary labour governance tools in seafood marginalise the workers they claim to protect,” Marine Policy 139 (May 2022): 1, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2022.105044.
[2] ISEAL Alliance, ISEAL Credibility Principles - Version 2 (June 2021),
https://www.isealalliance.org/sites/default/files/resource/2021-06/ISEAL-Credibility-Principles-V2-2021_EN_ISEAL_June-21.pdf.
Often schemes that do not have the benefit of rights holder perspectives are designed with blind spots and, as a result, fall short in addressing abuses. 

A media investigation found that companies certified by the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) were “tied to Chinese ships with crimes and risk indicators.”[1] The report cites, a spokesperson for MSC saying that its “programme is primarily to prevent environmental crimes and tracking where fish came from, not what labour concerns might exist on ships.” MSC had earlier admitted to limiting labor rights in its standard because it feared that if it adopted broader standards, existing adhering entities “could decide to drop out of the MSC program facing the additional cost and time burden of the new requirements.”[2] It may well be the opposite: a standard that incorporates rights holders' perspective is better positioned to ensure sustainability and meet all stakeholder expectations and attract new members.
 
→ Demonstrates: Reputational risk
[1] Ian Urbina, “From bait to plate – tracking the Chinese fishing ships linked to rights and labour abuses at sea,” Daily Maverick, November 19, 2023, https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2023-11-19-bait-to-plate-tracking-chinese-fishing-ships-linked-to-abuses/.
[2] MSI Integrity, Insight #3 Standards & scope: Many MSIs adopt narrow or weak standards that overlook the root causes of abuse or risk creating a misperception that they are being effectively addressed (July 2020), 12, https://www.msi-integrity.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/MSI_INSIGHT_3_FINAL_FORWEBSITE.pdf.

The Fair Food Program and Lesotho Agreements are two well-known binding agreements featured as examples of initiatives that avoid red flags. Since the Fair Food Program's inception, researchers report that "abuse long endemic to large-scale agricultural operations is now effectively eliminated" on participating farms. The Lesotho Agreements' Year 2 progress report found the grievance mechanism "appears to be remarkably effective" with "exceptionally speedy" redressal.[1] For a discussion of  how binding agreements compare to traditional social auditing, see the Committee on Workers Capital and Labour Rights Investor Network's Investor Guidance and Expectations: Supply Chain Due Diligence and Binding Agreements.
While a rarity among certification and other social auditing schemes, evidence that rights holders had meaningful input into the standards is a feature of worker-driven initiatives and legally enforceable brand agreements, which have sprung up in response to the shortcomings of certification schemes.
➔    The Fair Food Program is an initiative of the Coalition of Immokalee Workers (CIW), a worker-led organization of Florida tomato pickers who for decades endured some of the worst working conditions in the United States. Beatings, rape and sexual harassment were commonplace, as were unpredictable hours, low wages, and severe working conditions. The worker-led Fair Food Program, transformed the industry. The Program’s About page reads:
Unlike many traditional Corporate Social Responsibility models, and even many multi-stakeholder certification programs that rely on social auditing, the Fair Food Program is a human rights program that is designed, monitored, and enforced by the very workers whose rights it is intended to protect.[2]
In developing the Fair Food Program’s code of conduct, workers included a standard on what constitutes a full tomato bucket, the unit by which tomato pickers are paid. This standard specifically addressed the wage theft caused when workers, who are paid based on the number of buckets they harvest, were routinely required to overfill buckets. Since the Fair Food Program’s inception, workers have contributed to revisions to the code of conduct, including safety protocols for the use of field trucks in the presence of harvesting crews and provisions to protect workers from extreme heat. This is particularly important in light of the fact that currently there are no federal or state laws to protect outdoor workers from heat stress, and some states are seeking to ban local governments from enacting such protections.
 
➔    The Milk with Dignity Program (MD), which was inspired by the Fair Food Program, likewise includes an explicit role for rights holders. The Milk with Dignity "About Page" states - “The MD Program is rooted in the Code of Conduct, which was created by the very workers it intends to protect.”[3]
 
➔    The 2021- 2022 Report on the Agreement to Eliminate Gender-Based Violence and Harassment in Lesotho explains that Lesotho-based trade unions and women’s rights organizations worked in tandem with US-based workers’ rights organizations to ensure that the program eliminated short-term employment contracts, except in limited cases of genuinely temporary work. This provision eliminated the precarity of employment women workers faced, which subjected them to coercion by managers and exposed them to risk of abuse and exploitation.
[1] P. Jerrentrup and S. Kuruvilla, Dindigul Agreement to Eliminate Gender-Based Violence and Harassment: Year 2 Progress Report, ILR Global Labor Institute, 2024, pp. 6 and 17, https://laborrights.org/sites/default/files/publications/Dindigul%20Year%202%20Final%209-4-24.pdf.
[2] “About – The Power of Prevention,” Fair Food Program, accessed February 29, 2024, https://fairfoodprogram.org/about/. See also, Fair Food Standards Council, Fair Food Program State of the Program Report (2021), 9, https://fairfoodprogram.org/results/.
[3] “About,” Milk with Dignity Standards Council, accessed June 28, 2024, https://milkwithdignity.org/about.
Does the scheme provide an explicit role for affected rights holders in the development and subsequent revisions of the certification standard?  
❐  Yes
❐  No
​❐  Partially
This project is a collaboration among the following organizations:
 This site is maintained by Rights CoLab. 
Copyright © 2024