Anyone else heard of this before?

--------snippo-------

From: "Vianna, Sidney"
Subject: FYI: DNV Certification Receives SA8000 Accreditation/Vianna

DNV Certification has been awarded accreditation to certify to Social Accountability 8000, the new global standard for working conditions based on several International Labor Organizations conventions, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Universal Declaration on Human Rights. DNV Certification will begin issuing SA8000 certifications this year.

SA8000 addresses working conditions including child labor, forced labor, health and safety, freedom of association, collective bargaining, discrimination, disciplinary practices, working hours, compensation and management systems. Companies that adopt SA8000 demonstrate a commitment to improved working conditions, which protect their brand images and reputations with customers, investors and employees.

"DNV Certification expects to certify at least a dozen companies to SA8000 before the end of 1998," says Roger Howe, DNV Certifications' general manager. "Many of them see SA8000 as complementary to DNV's proprietary Occupational Health and Safety Management System to which DNV has issued several certificates."

SA8000 has been defined by the Council of Economic Priorities, which published a guidance document through its London office. During the next two years, CEP will improve and refine this document through a global consultation process.

For more information on SA8000 accreditation, contact DNV Certification at telephone (281) 721-6818 or visit the company's Web site at www.dnvcert.com.

Thanks and regards,

Sidney Vianna

Where does one get a copy of SA9000..er, SA8000?

[This message has been edited by Roger Eastin (edited 10-12-98).]

I checked their web site and found nothing. I called and I got voice mail. If I find anything out I'll let you know.

See the March issue of Quality Progress at the bottom right of page 37. It's obvious the big 3 now seriously see themselves as a vehicle to force companies to embrace what ever they think is a good idea.

Comments, anyone? What do YOU think???

Sheesh, where does it stop? I thought the concept of SA8000 (I think that is the name of it) was going a little bit far (except in some countries), but this new "standard" seems like it may be legitimized. Again, my question is, why do we need a new standard when OSHA seems to have regulations already? Reid's comments about the fact that "...$2000 of the cost of every car results from employee health care costs..." - maybe GM needs to first determine whether they should reform their company health care system. Maybe they are paying out too much to their employees. I think we need a new standard like we need a hole in the head (oops, there's another health care cost...silly me!).

I have not, over the last 5 years, waivered from the belief that the big 3 want suppliers to essentially be satellites. Much like Mother Russia controlled her babies like Yugoslovia, Dan Reid and his ilk think they see the light - but not in their own companies (can you possibly imagine a GM assembly plant QS9000 registered???), but rather in their suppliers.

But I always come back to the reality. Not to be a smart ass, each company makes up their own mind whether they want to be automotive related or not and how far they will go. Some years back Intel told the big 3 to go eat raw eggs when the big 3 wanted Intel to register to QS9000. Motorola, however, took the registration route.

It doesn't stop until you stop it. As long as your company makes a profit selling to automotive I bet they'll kneel when told to. Reid's comments about the fact that "...$2000 of the cost of every car results from employee health care costs..." - maybe GM needs to first determine whether they should reform their company health care system.Those who work for the big 3 have unbelieveably good health and benefit packages. Typically suppliers have comparatively poor plans.

This is an aspect I have preached about since I realized in 1988 that GM (in particular then, but they're all recognizing it now) was headed towards evolving into a management firm. Assembly of modules is already a reality (no - not just small stuff like switches or dashboards, but the big stuff like a front end). The goal is to have suppliers do the majority of the work. The GM Brazil experiment from the 1980's had suppliers actually providing personnel for attaching their component modules to the vehicle at the plant. Heck, why should GM do anything more than watch? That way the suppliers are responsible for benefits and healthcare costs, etc. The only thing stopping a very quick switch is the auto workers union will not let them pare down the work force quickly.

The evolution is interesting to watch.

You can get information on the SA8000 by contacting LINK, a new company striving for a Fair Trade Guarantee:

Contact Information:
AMANA SA
Adelbändli 12
CH-5000 Aarau
SWITZERLAND

Telephone: +41 62 823 6984
Fax: +41 62 823 8822
The website will be launched next wednesday, March 22 (believe me, I know, I'm the webmaster for LINK!): ***OBSOLETE LINK DELETED***

Good Luck

***OBSOLETE LINK DELETED***
Try This site.

Also see:

Sa8000:2001 + Iso9001:2000 (http://Elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=4222)

Marc,

Yes, I am cringing! But since this is not a political forum I will bite my tounge and find another forum to vent my views.

You are very correct in your views concerning auto suppliers becoming satellites to the big 3. Numerous companies I have dealt with actually have items in their business plans to locate feeder shops near the assembly plants. This will work with the large suppliers but the small suppliers will suffer due to the costs involved.

But like you say, most suppliers are at the mercy of the automakers, unless they think forward enough to have a varied customer base and don't rely totally on automotive.

Do bear in mind this thread is from March 2000.

I believe (if I recall correctly) there is only one company in America registered.

L.E. Jones Company
1200 - 34th Avenue
Menominee, MI 49858 United States
TEL: (906) 863 4411
FAX: (906) 863 4867

If I can read my writing, I believe you can still get a free copy at ****OBSOLETE LINK REMOVED**** If not you can get a official copy at e-mail info@sa-intl.org for $20 US dollars

So far, one single customer (In Greece) has asked us to fill in a questionnaire about SA8000. Needless to say I went out looking for more info about it. I found this link:

http://www.cepaa.org/

The site also contains a link to an online version of the document itself:
****OBSOLETE LINK REMOVED****

As it turned out, the requirements were covered almost to the last letter by swedish law.

The requirements concerned:

1. Child Labour
2. Forced Labour
3. Health and Safety
4. Freedom of Association & Right to Collective Bargaining
5. Discrimination
6. Disciplinary Practices
7. Working Hours
8. Remuneration
9. Management Systems


/Claes

I feel we will see more and more of this as the profit margins fall. The company I work for is a wholly owned subsidiary of Ford. When Ford purchased us we went through a real change in philosophy, it became an us against them with the shop. Once the UAW was invited in it has gone downhill. Our benefit packages were in line with the B3 before being bought. Once the contract with the UAW was signed the real war began. All salary personnel received a nice increase in their health care payments while the union workers got a complete comp they do not pay for there coverage it is made up by the salary people also their co-pays were decrease while ours were increased. Because they no longer had a co-pay the visits to the ER and doctors office increased so what happened this year? Our premiums went up. I'm not supporting the attitude of the B3 towards their suppliers. However, I believe that some of the costs and reports you see ($2000 per car, etc.) is out of their direct control due to the labor market. Another interesting issue is that the Ford STA group is mostly new employees and they are managing 4-7 programs each. They don't have much experience in customer/supplier relations, it is a difficult job managing the suppliers, and their performance evaluation is based on how the suppliers perform.
There has been a complete change in how Ford is doing business now. We use to be able to choose the parts we were going to make for the new programs. Now the philosophy is that we take all or nothing and if we don't have the capacity we have to manage the rest of it (out source, supplier selection, etc.). Once again I'm not defending them, but "the times they are a changing" and I truely believe we will see more of these type issues as they (B3) try to manage from a distance>:bonk:

By march '02, according to TUV Rheinland, 117 companies have been certified to SA8000 worldwide. The issues of Social management standard are being dicussed much more in developing countries rather than developed. CDG from Germany just organised number of workshops on SA8000 in Vietnam and in the Phillipine.

Vinatex (Vietnam textile ) have decided that about 70 companies under it will go for SA8000 mainly due to perceived pressure from US market. From the 4 workshops in VN I can see that companies in furniture, footware, food... industries are also under pressure of having some form of social code of conduct like SA8000. The most challenge for SA8000 want-to-be could be the requirement on overtime (no more than 12 hours per week, which is difficult for those with seasonal factor)

Sorry that Internet in Vietnam is too slow otherewise i can upload some presentation on the topic.
:bigwave:

Tuan

Some Data on SA 8000 from Industry week:
As of March 2002 118 facilities from 25 industries in 24 coutries were SA 8000.

July 2002 Quality Digest has an article on SA8000 this month. I just read the online version, and checked out the stuff online at the sites listed in previous reply's.

Too bad Cathi Gifford and wal Mart didn't know about this earlier:biglaugh:

pl. find attached file in the relation with new SA 8000.

manoj New SA Standard

Has anyone heard anything new on this? Is it still alive or what?

It's alive and being kicked around. I've even had some folks ask about it and refer to it in training classes that I deliver. Had old Kathy Gifford and Wal Mart checked it out some road road in retail sales may not have occurred.

The latest stats on SA-8000 are attached

Hi fellas, just want to update this thread. SA 8000 standard is alive and kicking here in the Philippines. A big Japanese electronics company here required their suppliers to align themselves to the SA 8000 standard before the end of 2007.

Cheers!

Here in Brasil our state owned Petroleum company (Petrobras) tried to "oblige" all of their key suppliers into certifying SA 8000 but then discovered themselves that they could not certify since the working hours on the oil platforms where in direct violation of 7.1 Working Hours.... so they backed off and only certified refining and extraction (one in the middle of the Amazon Forest) that where on land.

Attaching the 2001 English version of the standard... other languages can be downloaded from the Social Accountability Web Site http://www.sa-intl.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=Page.viewPage&pageId=710&parentID=540&grandparentID=4&nodeID=1

Attaching the 2001 English version of the standard... other languages can be downloaded from the Social Accountability Web Site

I have removed the attachment. Page 2 states this document can not be reproduce without prior written permission from SAI.

The document can be freely downloaded at the link provided by tedschmitt.

Sorry, missed that !! :o

Thanks Carol

Here in Brasil our state owned Petroleum company (Petrobras) tried to "oblige" all of their key suppliers into certifying SA 8000 but then discovered themselves that they could not certify since the working hours on the oil platforms where in direct violation of 7.1 Working Hours.... so they backed off and only certified refining and extraction (one in the middle of the Amazon Forest) that where on land.Interesting information. This is a typical example of problems we run into when a management system standard includes quantitative performance measures. Having a requirement to limit "normal work week" to a maximum of 48 hours will work in most of the situations in the developed world, but, like in the case of people who work in remote sites, such as an offshore platform, does not "jive".