Campaign #Against violence against textile workers © Saskia Wulfinghoff 08 March 2021 International Women's Day: Violence against women and the consequences The links between gender-based violence and the health consequences have so far received little attention from the actors in the textile industry. FEMNET will focus more on this topic. Dr. Gisela Burckhardt, Chair of FEMNET and project coordinator Sina Marx give an insight into why health plays an important role in the context of FEMNET's campaign and project work. FEMNET has long been fighting for decent working conditions in the textile industry. Will violence against women be a priority this year? Sina Marx: We will continue to fight against violence against textile workers and advocate for better protection and complaints for victims of violence. This is now more important than ever, because the corona crisis has once again exacerbated the problem of violence against women in factories and at home. The power gap in the factories has become even greater due to the existentially threatening economic situation of the textile workers: When workers cause "inconvenience" by resisting sexual advances or insults by superiors, they are simply fired and one of the countless unemployed workers replaced. These dependencies mean that workers talk even less about experiences of violence. Does gender-based violence affect women's health? Sina Marx: Here one must distinguish between the effects of economic violence, which particularly affects women on the one hand - i.e. the exploitation of workers - and physical violence and harassment on the other. Exploitation is one of the most common forms of structural violence against women workers in the clothing industry. Women receive less pay for work of equal value, are more likely to be overburdened and underpaid, and are more likely to perform unpaid work outside contractual arrangements. For example, women face poverty-related gender consequences: Many workers are not only forced to work massive overtime, but have to do more paid work (including homework for the textile industry) to make ends meet. In many households, women are primary or sole earners. Poverty wages place women in such drastic economic dependence that in many cases they are forced to endure other forms of exploitation and violence. This applies to both themselves and their children (including sexual exploitation, child labour and child trafficking). Economic exploitation leads to malnutrition, overload and exhaustion, which have a detrimental effect on the health and educational opportunities of women and their children. Violence, of course, plays a further role here, especially as far as women's mental health is concerned. Studies show that many textile workers suffer from anxiety, as well as depression, social impairment, and a persistent feeling of depression. However, the links between gender-based violence and health effects have so far received little attention from relevant actors, such as local trade unions, but also from purchasing companies. We need to change this in order to better protect the physical and mental health of textile workers. What is the role of due diligence and the Supply Chain Act in this context? Gisela Burckhardt: According to the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights adopted in 2011, companies are required to identify human rights risks in their supply chain and to prevent them with targeted measures. The OECD also stated this in a guideline in 2017: for the fulfilment of due diligence to promote responsible supply chains in the clothing and footwear industry, e.g. in the event of labour rights violations, redress or compensation should be provided to the persons concerned. If the health of workers in the workplace is endangered, this is a violation of labour law. Purchasing European companies must ensure that their producers do not endanger the health of workers. Since the prescribed steps in the UN Guiding Principles and also in the OECD Guide are not legally enforceable, we need a supply chain law. However, the current draft by the Federal Government is insufficient. This does not cover the entire supply chain, but only the immediate supplier. This can be a middleman or a ready-to-wear factory, e.g. in Bangladesh. But the ‘indirect’ suppliers in the deeper supply chain, such as spinning mills, are not covered. There is a so-called graduated duty of care. This is also contrary to the UN Guiding Principles. Also, the law should only apply to large companies from 3000 employees at first, but many textile companies are smaller and thus do not fall under the law. In addition, there is no civil liability as provided for, for example, by French law, but I say: No liability – no effect. Those affected have little opportunity to sue in a German court. Finally, there is a great need for improvement in terms of gender equality. The bill makes no reference to the CEDAW and ILO Convention 190 against Gender-Based Violence in the Workplace. Both risk analysis and prevention measures do not draw attention to the particularly precarious situation of women (wage gap, etc.), for which corrective measures must be implemented.
