Get the latest
Subscribe to our email newsletters and stay up to speed on ethical trade.
A few weeks ago I read a particularly shocking story in an Indian newspaper about how people in Gujarat are dying after contracting silicosis working in quartz-crushing factories.
But despite the horrifying scale and nature of the problem, not one international newspaper picked the story up.
In fact, with the exception of major industrial disasters, health and safety issues don't even seem to get much air space in ethical trade circles. This seems surprising given its prominence in most ethical auditors' corrective action reports. But perhaps that's part of the problem - it might suggest that enough is already being done to drive improvements.
Yet according to the ILO, globally 6,000 people die every day from work-related accidents and sickness. That's one death every 15 seconds.
I talked to Stirling Smith, ethical trade consultant and ETI trainer about the health and safety situation in India, the wider issues involved in tackling health and safety, and what companies should be doing.
Stirling worked for the Commonwealth Trade Union Council in India from 1986 -1988, was back as Chief Technical Advisor for the International Labour Organisation - the UN agency behind the ETI Base Code - from 1992 -1994 and continues to visit several times a year. He has a wealth of experience on tackling health and safety as well as knowledge of the Indian context.
Just how bad is the health and safety situation in India?
About ten years ago I did some research into accidents and illnesses at work in India and I discovered that more than one hundred thousand workers are killed every year at work. That's one person every five minutes - the equivalent of a Bhopal disaster every month. If a new illness was discovered in India killing someone every five minutes, there would be an immediate reaction. There would be conferences and research grants, foreign donors would field missions and offer funding. But when I brought my research to the attention of donor governments and aid agencies, none of them seemed to be interested.
Have attitudes changed over the past ten years?
Not that I can see - donor agencies still just don't seem to be interested in the world of work. Take HIV/AIDS for example. Many more people die every year from workplace-related accidents and illnesses - over 2 million at last count - than do from HIV/AIDS, yet the money that is donated towards this cause dwarfs what's provided for health and safety initiatives. Not, of course, that I am against funding for HIV/AIDS.
Is India any worse than anywhere else?
It's difficult to tell. India - as indeed do Bangladesh and Pakistan - has a patchwork of legislation on health and safety that was inherited from British rule. There are acts that cover certain sectors - for example dock working, mining, construction and so on, but many sectors aren't covered. Agriculture for example has no health and safety legislation attached to it - nor do smaller factories. This was the situation in the UK until 1974.
What are the implications of these huge gaps in legislative cover?
Well it means that if your workplace is covered by one of the health and safety acts, at least you're in the system - the labour inspectorate should know you're there and there is a requirement on the company to report. Of course you could argue that in many countries there is such a low coverage of health and safety inspectors per head, this is less significant than it might seem.
The picture you've painted seems at odds with evidence that suggests that ethical trade is helping make workplaces safer. Why is that?
It's certainly true that when you look at most audit reports, the bulk of the corrective actions that are listed are usually health and safety issues. The problem is, auditors are only looking at the symptoms, not the root causes. Anyone can spot that someone isn't wearing protective goggles. What takes a lot more skill is working out what steps could be taken that would mean they wouldn't have to wear goggles in the first place.
What would that mean in practice?
Well, there's something in the health and safety profession called the ‘hierarchy of control'. So for example say you have a noisy machine. The first step is to try and change the machine to a quieter one. If you can't do that, the next step might be to clad the machine in some kind of material to prevent the noise from escaping. The last resort is to give people ear protectors.
So what could companies be doing to improve the situation?
The starting point has to be to help get workers organised into unions. That's not necessarily an easy thing to hear, but all the evidence points to the fact that unionised workforces have better health and safety records. And it doesn't even necessarily mean you have to have elected health and safety reps in place. Simply having a union means that an environment has been created where workers feel safe to be able to raise issues with management.
Another positive thing companies could do would be to get a better understanding of good practice in their sectors. The ILO has produced a whole raft of codes of practice that deal with various sectors. These codes are drawn up by tripartite committees of experts and signed off by the ILO governing body. While they may not carry the same legal force as ILO conventions they still carry a lot of weight and are very useful practical reference documents.
Companies should also be thinking about getting appropriately qualified auditors that have more background in health and safety, and they need to be proactive at talking to factory managers about how to manage health and safety. It is very rare that you'll find a factory that tackles it systematically.