German Partnership for Sustainable Textiles

Timeela Manandhar's report on a Working Meeting of the German Partnership for Sustainable Textiles - overshadowed by intense debates between civil society and businesses

On October 27, I represented the IEE at the 2021 Working Meeting of the German Partnership for Sustainable Textiles (‘Textile Partnership’) in Cologne. Due to Covid-19, this event was organized as a hybrid meeting with safety measures in place: 60 representatives of the Partnership Members participated in person and 30 participated online. The Textile Partnership is a multi-stakeholder initiative comprised of 130 members from the fields of business, trade unions, civil society organizations, state agencies, standard setting organizations and - as observing members - research institutions. Together, those involved in the collaboration are striving to improve the social, ecological and economic conditions along the textile supply chain through cooperative engagement. The Partnership was founded in October 2014, in response to deadly accidents in textile factories in Bangladesh and Pakistan, particularly the tragic collapse of the ‘Rana Plaza’ building. It was initiated by the outgoing German Federal Minister for Economic Cooperation and Development, Dr. Gerd Müller. The IEE became an official observing member of the Textile Partnership in 2016 and is represented by its Director, Professor Markus Kaltenborn, as well as research fellows, Timeela Manandhar and Britta Holzberg.

The second Working Meeting in 2021

The Textile Partnership’s second Working Meeting of 2021 consisted of several plenary and break-out sessions on ongoing and new projects within the Textile Partnership. Topics included gender-based violence, climate protection, purchasing practices, supply chain transparency, sustainable public procurement, and worker-based monitoring.

Especially insightful was the input on “Worker Driven Social Responsibility: An Introduction to Data Academy Program” by Gajimu, the Wage Indicator Project in Indonesia on behalf of the civil society organizations in the Textile Partnership. The project collects and analyses worker-driven data for social dialogue and monitors working conditions across supply chains, aiming to mitigate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on employment and current labor reforms. The evidence-based or data-based advocacy model encourages the position of both parties (trade unions and companies) to be equal in conducting "collective bargaining" and to implement accountability and transparency in their factories. More information on the collected data and the methodology can be acquired by contacting Johannes Norpoth, who is coordinating the civil society organizations within the Partnership – and happens to be an IEE fellow.

Johannes Norpoth and Timeela Manandhar

Outlook on current debates on the voluntary nature of the Textile Partnership

Unfortunately, the current climate in the Partnership is characterized by controversial debates. A lot is centered around the Review Process, a mandatory due diligence process for (business) members of the Textile Partnership. In this process, baseline assessments regarding social, ecological and economic conditions along their supply chain are made, goals are set for improving the conditions in the coming year, data are recorded in a company’s annual roadmap, and progress reports are written to outline any developments. These reports are made accessible to all partnership members and reviewed by external experts. Further, the roadmaps and progress reports are published on the partnership website for the public eye, with sensitive information redacted. While many business members have diligently and successfully undertaken the review process from beginning to end, several corporations have unfortunately not fulfilled their reporting duties. Failing the review process, among other individual reasons, led to several members having to leave the Partnership -  a setback for the multi-stakeholder approach.

Controversies between civil society organizations and businesses overshadowed the Textile Partnership from the beginning and mirrored the sector-independent debates on voluntary versus binding mechanisms to ensure businesses’ responsibility for human rights and the environment. The corporate responsibility for human rights was first laid out in 2011 in the ‘United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights’ (UNGP), unanimously adopted by the Human Rights Council and unanimously recognized by the United Nations General Assembly. The UNGP consists of three pillars: the state duty to protect human rights; the corporate responsibility to respect human rights; and access to remedy for victims of business-related abuses. The implementation of the UNGP should consist of a ‘smart mix’ of voluntary and binding mechanisms.

The Textile Partnership was one key component of Germany’s National Action Plan (NAP) for Business and Human Rights, striving to implement the UNGPs, which by now has expired and needs to be updated by the new social-green-liberal coalition. However, the German NAP and the Textile Partnership have faced criticism for their voluntary nature, including from the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. After only very few corporations followed the voluntary guidelines set out by the NAP and following a campaign by civil society organizations as well as calls from legal practice and academia, Germany adopted a binding legislation on Corporate Due Diligence Obligations in Supply Chains  (‘Lieferkettengesetz’) this year, which will enter into force in January 2023.

The Supply Chain Law obliges companies over a certain size, determined by the number of employees each company has in Germany, to undertake a mandatory human rights due diligence process. However, this legislation only applies to a few companies in the textile and garment sector, as it is common practice to outsource most production steps. As a result, companies report a low number of employees in Germany, resulting in most companies falling outside the scope of this binding legislation. This might lead to different binding obligations for the business members in the Textile Partnership, endangering the level playing field.

To add to the different mechanisms governing corporate social and human rights responsibilities in the textile and garment sector, the German government announced the ‘Green Button’ in September 2019. This new label for standards in the textile sector aims to complement the Textile Partnership’s initiatives. This net of mechanisms will likely expand further when a mandatory due diligence directive will pass on the EU level. By the end of this year, the EU Commission wants to present a draft text.

The resulting question - debated lively at the working meeting - is, what the role of the Textile Partnership and its own review process can be in this expanding net of mechanisms. For example, many debates at the meeting focused on how well the Textile Partnership’s review process aligns with the new legal requirements set out by the Supply Chain Law. Additionally, analysis is needed if this conglomerate of mechanisms constitutes a ‘smart mix’ the UNGPs envision and can adequately prevent corporate human rights abuses.

Unfortunately, at this point in time, it remains open as to whether the review process and the obligations laid out therein will be fulfilled by the corporations that are part of the Textile Partnership and whether the different stakeholders can cooperate in good faith. This will determine whether the current composition and structure of the Textile Partnership has a future, or whether the review process will fail, questioning the partnership itself.

Timeela Manandhar
IEE Research Fellow