Heineken in Cambodia

Heineken Overview of arguable problem practices in 2008 Sanne new wave der Wal & Rob Bleijerveld April 2009 Heineken Overview of polemic craft practices in 2008 Sanne van der Wal & Rob Bleijerveld Amsterdam, April 2009 Heineken Overview of controversial business practices in 2008 Colophon Heineken Overview of controversial business practices in 2008 April 2009 By Sanne van der Wal & Rob Bleijerveld deal out Design Annelies Vlasblom Funding This publication is make possible with co-funding from the Vereniging van Beleggers voor Duurzame Ontwikkeling (VBDO) Published byStichting Onderzoek world-widee Ondernemingen tenderness for Research on Multi subject area Corporations Sarphatistraat 30 1018 GL Amsterdam The Netherlands Phone + 31 (20) 6391291 netmail emailprotected nl Website Hwww. somo. nl This document is licensed under the fanciful Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivateWorks 2. 5 License. 1 origin This corporation bailiwick has been prep ard by SOMO (Centre f or Research on Multinational Corporations). It renders an overview of business practices that could be regarded as unsustainable or autocratic which occurred (or might pay back been addressed) in 2008.The overview on a displace floor describes just controversial practices and non the electro verifying achievements of a phoner in the equivalent year. In organisation on positive achievements burn d consume usu every(prenominal)y be found in a companys annual and/or sustainability hatch and on the companys website. The purpose of this report is to provide additional teaching to sh arholders and other stakeholders of a company on controversies that might or might not be spy and inform by the company itself.This report does not contain an analysis of a companys corporate office policies, operational aspects of corporate state management, execution systems, reporting and transparency, or total cognitive operation on any issue. For any(prenominal) controversies, it is i ndicated which standards or policies may drive been violated and a brief analysis is presented. Apart from this, the report is mainly descriptive.The range of sustainability and corporate responsibility issues eligible for inclusion in this overview is relatively broad and mainly based on the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises. These Guidelines are employ as a general frame of savoir-faire in addition to the company-specific standards. Sources of information are mentioned in footnotes byout the report. The main sources were obtained through SOMOs global ne iirk of sound-bred society organisations, including reports, other documents, and un produce information.Media and company information infobases and information available via the net profit are used as subaltern sources where necessary. Heineken has been sure virtually the investigate mold in advance and was given two weeks to review the report and provide corrections of any concomitantual errors in the potation version. The overview of controversial practices in this report is not intended to be exhaustive. Instead, it focuses on a limited number of issues and cases that might deservingness further attention or reflection.Where information closely the latest developments, every positive or negative, was unavailable, it is possible that daubs described in the overview have recently changed. Taking into work out these limitations, SOMO believes that the report can buoy be used for improvement and for a more than informed assessment of a companys corporate responsibility performance. For more information, occupy contact SOMO SOMO (Centre for Research on Multinational Corporations) Sarphatistraat 30, 1018 GL Amsterdam, The Netherlands Tel. 31 (0)20 6391291 Fax +31 (0)20 6391391 netmail emailprotected nl website www. somo. nl 2 Heineken Overview of controversial business practices in 2008 Precarious operative conditions of Heineken Beer lead astrayers in Cambodia This pithy overview deals with only one issue the continuing bad cranch and wellness conditions of socalled beer sellers in Cambodia, salaried women who wear distinctive Heineken uniforms part exclusively selling Heineken beer in disallow and restaurants, alongside those working for its partly have partner signs (e. . , Tiger, ABC, etc), and for competitors.The work conditions of these women, who are hired by most of the international brewers and their distributors in operation(p) in Cambodia 1 , have been criticised for more or less(prenominal) years, by the Cambodian NGO (Non- politicsal plaque ) Siem sop up Citizens for Health, Educational and Social Issues (SiRCHESI) 2 . In 2002 the CEO and the Boards of both(prenominal) Heineken Breweries Ltd and Heineken retentivity N. V. from here Heineken) were first notified by SiRCHESI of concerns about the health and welfare of their beer sellers, who celebrated, in 2008, to be at high risk for human immunodeficiency virus/ aid an d intoxicant- related health problems, who hold sexual harassment and violence at their workplaces, and who are not stipendiary a living wage- a stipend for a full-time job on which they can get themselves and their family dependents. Press reports going defend to 1998, and particularly a story in the Wall Street Journal (2000) had already clearly described the problems before well-disposed scientists began systematic data collection. Also SOMOs overview of controversial business practices of Heineken during 2006 for VBDO of April 2007 has called attention to this critical issue. 4 Recent inquiries and research in Cambodia as part of a longitudinal take on (2004-2009) 5 reconfirm that these bad labour and health conditions still exist. Heineken and other brands, with whom they both compete and co-operate have not make significant progress in 2007, nor in 2008 to reduce the high risks to the health and resort of the women beer-sellers in Cambodia nor meet their monthly f inancial needs.So far, industry efforts to resolve these issues through the formation in late 2006 of Beer Selling pains Cambodia as a professional brewers friendship with a code of conduct (COC) for beer sellers have failed. 1 2 3 4 5 See e. g. Heineken en promotiemeisjes in Cambodja deel A, R. Feilzer and F. P. van der Putten (p. 85-96) and F. P. van der Putten, deel B (p. 109-13), in Bedrijfsgevallen, Eds. W Dubbink and H. van Luijk (Assen Van Gorcum, 2006). SiRCHESI website, . and ,, and . SiRCHESIs website http//www. fairtradebeer. com press reports section. Heineken Overview of controversial business practices in 2006, Francis Weyzig (SOMO), April 2007 Performed by Staff, volunteers ,researchers and students located in Siem Reap with SiRCHESI, or at Siem Reap churl assist Office, of University of Guelph (CA), National Center in HIV Social Research (University of bare-ass South Wales, AU), Macquarie University (Sydney, AU), University of Melbourne (AU), Australia Vo lunteers outside(a), Duke University (North Carolina, US), Oxford University (Oxford, UK), University of Technology Sydney (AU), as welll as University of Maastricht, NL, National University of Singapore, and Staffordshire University (UK).Data and analyses were provided through Ian Lubek, international adviser to SiRCHESI. The SIRCHESI interviews with beer sellers were conducted either in the workplaces or during health workshops. 213 interviews were conducted from 2004-6, and 324 from 2007-9. 22 beer sellers worked for Heineken and partner brands, 57 worked for Carlsberg brands such(prenominal)(prenominal) as Angkor 56 sell AB-INBEV brands, 1 sold a SAB-Miller brand, and the remaining 201 sold other brands including Dutch brands Bavaria, Hollandia, as well as Corona, San Miguel, Singha, Oettinger, Asahi, etc. 3 Below, around controversial aspects of the status in 2008, revealed by SiRCHESI, are described. More background data can be found on the SiRCHESI website dedicated to t his issue www. ethicalbeer. com. On the aforementioned(prenominal) website more new details on the longitudinal study, including data for 2008-9, are published by SiRCHESI 6 as well. small-scale income and transparency As in 2006, SiRCHESI research 7 confirms that Heineken is not give a living wage in 2008.If Heineken and its Asia peace-loving Breweries partner brands (Tiger, ABC, Anchor, Cheers,etc. paid their beer sellers the current industry standard (2008) of just over 8 US dollar mark per beer case as commission, they would earn based on SiRCHESIs observations of sales of more than 3 cases per shadow about 700 US dollars per month which amounts to about 10 times the current determined salary. BSIC brand sellers are consistently paid less each month than non-BSIC brands soon enough increasingly sell manifold more beer each year 8 . In fact workers get less than 2. 5 portion of the sale, and face severe periodic workplace health and sentry duty risks. procedure of t his profitability for Heineken is based on the sellers own nightly consumption of about 6 pct of sales, which adds scathe and risk to their working situation.For a number of years, Heineken officials reported paid bonuses to the beer servers, yet SiRCHESI interviews showed that from 2002 onwards these were not existence received by the beer sellers. In fact in 2008 they reported receiving monthly fee of 71 US dollars which is considerably lower than the 84 US dollars reported by non-BSIC sellers and the 85 US dollars Heineken headquarters reports paying 9 . SiRCHESI estimates that 71 US dollar monthly is still less than one-half of what would be enough to provide for them and their family dependents. This situation of underpayment first reported to Heineken executives in 2002 and unchanged ever since- puts terrible pressures on the women to support their families and to make ends meet, compelling some to sell unsafe sex to customers in hopelessness to supplement insufficient income.In general it is concentrated for Heineken beer sellers to know to what benefits and bonuses they are entitled because Heineken is failing to provide beer sellers copies of their work contracts specifying working conditions, benefits such as severance pay and gestation leave, and exact earnings all, transparently. In 2008, no beer seller could show SiRCHESI a write of their signed contract. Several Heineken beer sellers said they did have signed contracts but that these contracts had gone to the distributors dubiousness Quarters in Cambodia. In 2008 SiRCHESI asked the distributor and BSIC for copies of these contracts they but were told they were proprietary and could not be disseminated. 6 7 8 9 See for example Ab-Inbev, Carlsberg, Heineken and other international brewers are yet again in 2008-9 behaving badly to women beer sellers in Cambodia, SiRECHESI, April 2009, http//www. ethicalbeer. com/read/April2009-INFO.df AND prof criticizes international beer companies for not being proactive enough in Cambodia (2008-9) to protect their women beer sellers from hazardous, harmful, and potentially mortal workplace health and recourse risks Citing recent research, he urges company executives, brand consumers and shareholders to implement immediate changes. , SiRCHESI, April 2009, http//www. ethicalbeer. com/read/APRIL2009Press-info. pdf This overview builds on SiRCHESI published (see footnote directly above) and unpublished information provided/communicated directly to SOMO by As Tiger Beer seller Sophea wrote to management at Cambodian Breweries Ltd. asking for a salary increase to 100 US dollars monthly Our claim is absolutely justified. The quantity of our sales increased, and the price of beer increased too. straightway it Tiger Beer is sold for 2. 90 US dollars. (Cambodge Soir, 18-25 June, 2008). Biermeisjes bezorgen Heineken hoofdpijn, Financiele Telegraaf (p. 27) 10 mei 2008 4 Heineken Overview of controversial business practices in 2008 Workpl ace health and safety issues Heinekens HIV/AIDS policy of 2002 has promised coverage to all its workers world-wide 10 . However the company and partner brands are still not providing free drug cocktail (highly active anti-retroviral therapy) for their HIV positive beer sellers as they do for their personnel in Africa.What compounds the situation is that most beer-sellers are currently excluded from Government ARVT (anti-retroviral therapy) programs due to Cambodia and the Global Funds inability to implement access in 2008-9 for all persons living with HIV. Simple factors such as lack of daily fare to a statistical distribution site look on that many beer-sellers cannot receive ARVT. In Africa Heineken has puzzle out this problem through workplace distribution of HAART. Heineken is also not providing enough effective workplace health and safety fostering about HIV/AIDS, reproductive health and alcohol risks before employment begins. Although Heineken proactively highly-develope d the Selling Beer Safely (SBS) Program in 2003 it has not been offered to every employee moreover, the number of beneficiaries of SBS is declining markedly.Of 224 Heineken family sellers in the SiRCHESI research sample of 2004 to 2009, 31. 2 percent had received no health educational activity at the time of the interview. It should be mentioned that this is best than the industry average of 43. 3 percent that received no health and safety teaching about being a beer seller. In 2004, 22 percent of Heineken or Tiger beer sellers had received SBS training. However in 2008 this share had declined to 4. 7 percent. However, when SiRCHESI asked whether they had received either the SBS or any other in-house training program 11 , BSIC beer sellers did modestly amend 27. 8 percent reported in-house training, term only 8. 3 percent non-BSIC sellers reported in-house training.But the most serious criticism is the procrastination in supplying this education. Of 224 Heineken family beer sel lers interviewed, 16 (7. 1 percent) received training before they started, and a further 6 (2. 7 percent) received it on the first day. 80/224 or 35. 7 percent had received it in the next 6 months, while the equilibrium had training in the next 18 months or not at all (122 or 54. 5 percent). Hence only 9. 8 percent had been given some early-warning training before or on the first day of work- about the risks and harm possible for beer-sellers themselves, damage to the fetus during pregnancy, or contraction of HIV/AIDS or a sexually transmitted transmission (STI).Although the BSIC COC which Heineken claims to uphold explicitly forbids workplace drunkenness of alcohol, SiRCHESI found that only 6% of Heineken (7. 6% of BSIC brands) beer sellers were in fact abstaining in 2008. For those who continue to drink, the mean alcohol consumed nightly by BSIC sellers in 2008 was 1. 48 litres nightly or 6 standard drinks (N=103), while 1. 53 litres (7 standard drinks) were consumed nightly b y Heineken beer family servers (N=89). all(prenominal) of these levels are well above levels of national guidelines for responsible drinking as stupefy for women by 23 countries surveyed by the foreign Center For Alcohol Policies (ICAP) 12 including the Netherlands.This path that these women have an increased risk for corporeal (raised blood pressure, stroke, and liver cirrhosis), mental, and social problems associated with alcohol abuse. While (excessive) workplace drinking continues to be a critical issue in Cambodia it has been observed by SiRCHESI to no all-night exist in nearby Singapore. 10 11 12 Heinekens HIV/AIDS Policy contribution of a close company, HEINEKEN COR P. COMMUNICATION 02 92857455 NO. 023, by Heineken transnational, 18 April 2002 (at http//fairtradebeer. com/reportfiles/heinekenaidspolicy2002. pdf) SiRCHESI other in house-training are generally shorter than the 3 day SBS training some just get 1-2 hours the refresher courses International Center For Alcohol Policies (ICAP) in International Drinking Guidelines Reports 14