Require suppliers to issue 'Right to Organize' guarantees to workers.
ASICS says it accepts the idea of requiring all suppliers to adopt a “freedom of association policy” and says it is discussing printing information about workers’ right to freedom of association on the back of worker ID cards rather than issuing a formal “right to organize guarantee”.
Proposal A4: Provide an accessible complaints process for workers.
ASICS says it has started establishing a direct grievance channel for some of its factories. The company says that its audits include off-site interviews with workers to hear their complaints after giving workers assurances of non-retaliation.
Proposal A9: Require suppliers to sign union access agreements.
ASICS says it does not require the signing of access agreements between factory management and local unions, but recommends that factories open dialogue with trade unions and workers.
ASICS will not commit to ensuring workers engaged in its core business are signed to open-ended contracts. The company says that it has not audited to assess whether there are economic disparities between fixed duration contract workers and permanent workers
Proposal B6: Establish long-term relationships with factories.
ASICS says that it awards long-term and/or stable supply contracts based on business considerations, but that it selects and retains factories that comply with its code of conduct. There is no specific commitment to creating long-term stability in the supply chain.
“In the future, Asics would like to develop and adopt the policies and procedures to support the MFA Forum’s Collaborative Framework, however, at this moment, we have no time and no workforce to handle this as we are focusing and making our best effort to establish the effective and creditable supply chain management system.”
Proposal C3: Report publicly on length of factory relationships.
The company says that “The average length of relationship and details statistics could be provided.”
Proposal C4: Report publicly on how suppliers are chosen and/or eliminated.
ASICS says it has a policy for supplier/vender selection and procedure for starting business with a supplier, but not a termination policy. The company does lists factors taken into account when considering terminations such as: the length of the relationship, changes in the business environment, ASICS’ changing business strategy, product delivery, product quality, etc. The company also says it tries to leave factories gradually by reducing orders through 1-2 seasons and by informing the supplier of the pullout in time to let the supplier look for new clients. No mention of linking CSR performance to sourcing.
ASICS says it recognizes the importance of incorporating a living wage standard in its code of conduct but says before putting it into practice “the definition of a living wage should be clarified.”
Proposal D3: Ensure prices are sufficient to pay a living wage.
ASICS will not commit to determining whether the prices it pays to suppliers are sufficient to allow suppliers to pay wages that meet basic needs. The company says that factories determine wages independently and that ASICS does not pay workers directly.
Proposal D6: Take steps to improve workers’ wages.
ASICS will not commit to achieving a living wage over time. The company does recognize the necessity of achieving a living wage and thinks consensus-building toward the adoption of the clear definition of living wage is essential for this. The company participates in discussions/forums to this end.
The brand claims to implementing all components of this proposal or has agreed to implement them within Play Fair's proposed timeframe.
The brand is currently implementing or has agreed to implement some of the essential components of the proposal but has refused to implement, has overlooked, or has raised issues with one or more important components; or, the brand agrees to implement the proposal but not within Play Fair’s proposed timeframe.
The brand has refused to implement the essential components of the proposal.
The brand has misunderstood or failed to comment on the proposal; or the brand is considering the proposal, but has yet to make a decision.