Why Nygard is out of fashion
Canadian company is woefully behind times in terms of supply-chain transparency
The Nygard name is synonymous with flowing blond locks (founder Peter Nygard), mid-market fashions (TanJay etc.) and an entire line named after one of the leader’s offspring (Bianca Nygard).
A coalition of worker rights groups now wants to add deadbeat to the Canadian fashion company’s list of corporate attributes. There’s something right in the consortium’s initiative. But there’s something wrong, too.
Export data obtained by the Clean Clothes Campaign, which includes Labour Behind the Label in the U.K. and the Workers United Canada Council, show Nygard as the consignee for five clothing shipments out of Cambodia between November 2015 and April 2016 from Chung Fai Knitwear. Chung Fai is, or rather was, one of the multitude of garment manufacturers operating in the Meanchey district in the country’s capital, Phnom Penh. Export data obtained by Clean Clothes documents substantial shipments of garments to Nygard from Chung Fai, entering North America through California.
A simple Google search produces a bill of lading documenting knitted blouses and sweaters made for Nygard at Chung Fai and shipped via Singapore and Los Angeles to a final destination of Laredo, Texas.
In June of last year, the Chung Fai factory ceased production and more than 200 workers have been protesting since for payment of lost wages and severance. The Phnom Penh Post reported that some of the workers had put in more than 15 years at the factory. Chung Fai is assumed bankrupt. The workers received their last pay in May 2016 and are owed an estimated $550,000 (U.S.).
Here’s a line from the Clean Clothes Campaign: “As they stitched clothes for U.K. brands Marks and Spencer and Bonmarché, as well as Canadian brand Nygard, the workers are demanding that these companies take responsibility and give them the legally due payments that their supplier failed to provide.”
What’s right about the campaign is the implicit naming and shaming of companies that are still woefully behind the times in terms of supply-chain transparency. This is a story that runs on an endless reel, albeit with notable progress from some retailers.
In April, a report entitled “Follow the Thread” championed those companies that meet the reasonable standard of naming their supplier factories, with addresses, parent company, number of workers and the category of products made.
Mountain Equipment Co-Op is one example of a Canadian company whose factory disclosure list is posted, with factory names and addresses, though absent parent company information.
The No More Operating in the Dark campaign that resulted from the Follow the Thread report specifically targeted Canadian Tire, which makes clothing under the Denver Hayes label, for its failure to introduce full supply chain transparency.
It is the consumer who could hold the balance of power here. And it can’t be restated often enough that Canadian companies have been laggards on this issue compared with European pacesetters.
What does Nygard do? Its supplier compliance policy is available online, stipulating, for example, that suppliers will not use any form of forced or indentured labour, and will operate in compliance with applicable labour laws. “Nygard believes in Partnering with our Suppliers LONG TERM — giving us consistency of Supply Chain Quality and transparent working relationships . . . 60% of Nygard Suppliers have been with us for more than 5 yrs — this leads to outstanding communication and ACTION where needed day to day respecting the rights of Factory Workers.”
But who are those suppliers? The company does not say.
Seeking clarification about Chung Fai proves challenging. In an email, a corporate media spokesperson writes that Nygard International “has had no direct connection or any legal contracts with Chung Fai.” When asked about the bill of lading, the company responded that it has “never ordered goods from Chung Fai nor were we ever billed by them.”
If the work was subcontracted, then Nygard’s supply chain relationships are not as transparent as claimed. Asked if the work was subcontracted, Nygard sidesteps the question by responding that there is “no documentation relating to any contract between Nygard and Chung Fai for the ordering or billing of goods from Chung Fai.”
It is this kind of dancing around that, post Rana Plaza, caused reporters and rights activists to urge garment workers throughout Southeast Asia to secret labels out of factories to see which garments were being made there. Transparency is not the principal focus of the current Clean Clothes Campaign. Restitution is. Back in January, the Workers United Canada Council wrote directly to Nygard, asking the company to “put pressure on (Chung Fai) to pay the workers the money that they are owed, or failing that, compensate the workers directly.” The campaign launched this week takes that appeal public.
But the wage and severance dispute lies within the purview of Cambodia’s labour laws. The department of dispute resolution has already ruled that the responsibility rests with Chung Fai.
Should it be Nygard’s responsibility to make amends when due process fails? That case can’t be made.
What the campaign has done is shine a light on the lack of transparency in Nygard’s operations. The company has been wholly transformed from its modest polyester beginnings in Winnipeg in the mid-1960s. It just hasn’t kept up with the times.
Clean Clothes Campaign has shone a light on the lack of transparency in Nygard’s operations. His company hasn’t kept up with the times