Responses from Mizuno

Proposal A1:

Require suppliers to issue 'Right to Organize' guarantees to workers.

Mizuno expects its suppliers to recognize and respect the right of employees to join and organize association of their own choosing, however they currently have no requirement for suppliers to issue Right to Organize Guarantees to their workers.

Full response

"The Guiding Principles already provides on the Freedom of association that we expect our suppliers to recognize and respect the right of employees to join and organize association of their own choosing. In our opinion, a positive climate of non-interference is encouraged under an effective system of communication between workers and factories managements."

Proposal A4: Provide an accessible complaints process for workers.

Mizuno does not have a formal system for receiving and addressing overseas worker complaints.

Full response

"Though we have the domestic worker confidential channel system named “Mizuno Hotline” in Japan and are still investigating, there are problems, including languages and manpower, on an overseas confidential channel to file complaints by workers,. As we, however, had experience that we have received a direct contact from a labour union in Bangladesh on working conditions and have arbitrated between the union and the factory managements by cooperation of International Textile, Garment & Leather Workers’ Federation ASIAN AND PACIFIC REGIONAL ORGANIZATION (ITGLWF-APRO) in 2005, we are actually able to respond to worker’s requests."

Proposal A9: Require suppliers to sign union access agreements.

Mizuno will not require the signing of access agreements at its supplier factories, arguing that it represents too small a percentage of orders to make that request.

Full response

"Majority of our suppliers have just small portion of total out put for Mizuno’s manufacturing. Considering such small percentage, it may not be appropriate to require the agreement to the suppliers. However as our suppliers know our Guideline Principles, according to its philosophy, there might be dialogue and constructive discussion to respect of labors’ rights."

Proposal B2: Eliminate third-party employment schemes.

Mizuno says it understands “these problems and will take steps to state our policies on the response to the problems related our suppliers gradually,” but does not currently make a commitment on the issue.

Full response

"In Japan also there has been short-term contract and third-party employment problems in recent years. We understand these problems and will take steps to state our policies on the response to the problems related our suppliers gradually."

Proposal B3: Eliminate short-term contracting.

Mizuno says it “will take steps to state our policies on the response to the problems related our suppliers gradually,” but the company does not commit to the elimination of short-term contracts, their clearly defined use, providing same salary and benefits to short-term contracts, or automatic open-ended contracts for workers after 2 fixed term contracts or two years’ employment.

Full response

Proposal B6: Establish long-term relationships with factories.

Mizuno acknowledges there are quality, efficiency and labour benefits to longer-term relationships with suppliers, but does not commit to any firm targets.

Full response

"To build long-term relation, we tried longer connection with factories. We understand that it should affect positive impact to 'Quality' 'Efficiency' and 'Labor Environment'."

Proposal C1: Adopt Responsible Transitions policies.

Mizuno “will consider developing formal policies and procedures to give effect to the MFA Forum’s Collaborative Framework” during its code review but will make no commitment at this point.

Full response

"Now we are taking steps to revise our Code of Conduct titled Guiding Principles for Suppliers to the Mizuno Corporation (the “Guiding Principles”), the Checklist and the RSCM. We will consider developing formal policies and procedures to give effect to the MFA Forum’s Collaborative Framework in the steps above-mentioned."

Proposal C3: Report publicly on length of factory relationships.

Mizuno says it may consider disclosing the average length of relationship with “main” suppliers but the company will not publicize statistics on other suppliers.

Full response

"We may consider disclosing the average length of our relationship with our main direct suppliers if there is no difficulty to calculate out. With respect to our small suppliers and 2nd or 3rd suppliers we cannot provide the detailed statistics."

Proposal C4: Report publicly on how suppliers are chosen and/or eliminated.

Mizuno states that its selection policy and CSR performance rules our found in its internal “Group Rule of Supply Chain Management “ which it is not willing to make public; but it is willing to publish its Vendors Human Rights Checklist. The company has no policy on factory closures.

Full response

"We have corporate policies for supplier selection that on start of business with supplier Mizuno group shows supplier documents required, evaluates supplier’s capability by using sheets specified and submit to conduct a labor audit related with CSR if necessary.

"The chapter 2 in our internal rule of practice for supplier/vendor titled Group Rule of Supply Chain Management undisclosed (the “RSCM”) provides the procedures detailed on start of business. In our view we select supplier that has advantages both in capability of performance and CSR.

"The chapter 3 in the RSCM provides procedures of business period including specific labor audit, factory profile questionnaires and factory visit report. We have no procedures on termination except provisions of OEM agreement as we have policies that we should instruct suppliers if we find problems in suppliers.

"We will prepare to disclose our labor standards program titled Mizuno Business Standards, Overview Evaluation for Vendors Human Rights Checklist undisclosed (the “Checklist”) in near future. There is no plan to disclose the RSCM as we regard it an internal rule."

Proposal D1:

Make a commitment to paying a living wage.

Mizuno expects suppliers to “recognize that wages are essential for meeting the basic needs of employees and reasonable savings and discretionary expenditure,” but will not commit to incorporating a living wage in its Code.

Full response

"The Guiding Principles describes on Wages and Benefits the following:

'We expect our suppliers to recognize that wages are essential for meeting the basic needs of employees and reasonable savings and discretionary expenditure, in all cases, wages must equal or exceed the minimum wage required by law or the prevailing industry wage, whichever is higher, and legally mandated benefits must be provided.'

"Though we can state, based on our labor audit reports, that minimum wage is guaranteed in our suppliers..."

Proposal D3: Ensure prices are sufficient to pay a living wage.

“As we have a corporate policy that we regard price data as confidential, we will not undertake such review.”

Full response

“As we have a corporate policy that we regard price data as confidential, we will not undertake such review.”

Proposal D6: Take steps to improve workers’ wages.

Mizuno says that it “is difficult to unify the recognition of a living wage from a neutral standpoint,” and will not commit to achieving a living wage.

Full response

"We can collaborate with other buyers to improve working environment and conditions. However, it is difficult to unify the recognition of a living wage from a neutral standpoint."

Response Key

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.