Developing an Action-based Health and Safety Training...

A project brought together international footwearmanufacturers, labor rights groups, local contract fac-tories, and occupational health professionals tostrengthen factory health and safety programs in south-ern China. Steps involved in the two-year project,including needs assessment, interviews and focusgroups with workers and supervisors; design and devel-opment of a participatory workshop; development ofplant-wide health and safety committees in threefootwear factories; and evaluation project impact, arediscussed. The project significantly increased occupa-tional safety and health knowledge, and hazards in thefactories were identified and corrected. Successes andchallenges faced by three functioning worker–manage-ment health and safety committees are discussed. Keyelements to create effective programs with meaningfulparticipation by workers include: 1) developing clearguidelines that enable multi-stakeholder groups to col-laborate; 2) obtaining top-level management support;3) building workers’ knowledge and capacity to fullyparticipate; 4) involving local labor rights groups andoccupational professionals in support and technicalassistance; and 5) connecting project goals to largerissues within a country and the global economy. Keywords: China; worker participation; workplace healthand safety programs.

INT J OCCUP ENVIRON HEALTH 2003;9 :357–367

Wang Pingli is one of 60,000 workers who produceshoes in a huge factory in the Guangdong province ofsouthern China. Along with other workers, she cuts,sews, glues, assembles, and inspects thousands ofsports shoes every day. The factory produced 14% ofall branded athletic footwear sold worldwide in 1999,including shoes for many transnational brands.Under the brands’ code of conduct, Wang is sup-posed to work a maximum of 60 hours per week, forwhich she receives 650 yuan per month (about U.S.$80) and room and board.

Like the other young, predominantly female workers,aged 18–24 who work at the factory, Wang lives on siteand sleeps on a narrow bunkbed in a small, 12-womandormitory room in a high-rise building. Her workentitles her to three meals a day at the factory can-teen. Factory regulations stipulate that she place hertoothbrush in just the right angle in her rinse cup,hang her face towel just so, participate in early-morn-ing drills, and obey the 11:30 PM curfew. Despitecode-of-conduct guidelines, at times Wang and herco-workers are not provided with gloves to protecttheir hands from the toxic glues they use or givensafety glasses to protect their eyes. During peak pro-duction times, they are often asked to work additionalovertime in violation of labor laws.1

The experiences of millions of young migrantwomen in southern China’s transnational facto-ries, like Wang Pingli, represent, for some, all

that is problematic about globalization. Today, China isthe largest manufacturing center in the world,2andGuangdong province, located one hour outside HongKong, is home to more than 100,000 factories thatemploy 15 to 20 million migrant workers from China’sless developed rural areas.3,4 And even as China achievesspectacular rates of economic growth, lax enforcementof regulations has led to adverse impacts of this growth,including a shocking health and safety record.

The government’s failure to regulate manufactur-ing has led to a string of well-publicized industrialtragedies—factory fires, high accident rates, toxicexposures—as well as chronic occupational healthproblems throughout the industry.5 During the lastten years, widespread media attention, and consumerand public concern about “sweatshop working condi-tions” in developing countries, have led to a prolifera-tion of “codes of conduct” and related nongovern-mental monitoring systems to improve conditions evenin areas with weak government enforcement. Thesecodes are designed to set standards for labor practices,including health and safety. Yet there is widespreadagreement among labor, human rights, and environ-mental groups that codes of conduct and workplacemonitoring systems often fail.6 Many believe that thebest monitors are workers and local organizations, butthey are often left out of the process, and may not havesufficient training and skills to evaluate these condi-tions themselves.7

357

Developing an Action-based Health andSafety Training Project in Southern China

BETTY SZUDY, DARA O’ROURKE, PHD, GARRETT D. BROWN, MPH, CIH

Received from the Labor Occupational Health Program, Uni-versity of California at Berkeley. Supported by the John D. andCatherine T. MacArthur Foundation.

Address correspondence and reprint requests or requests forcopies of the Chinese- and English-language training manuals to:Betty Szudy, Labor Occupational Health Program, 2223 FultonStreet, Fourth Floor, Berkeley, CA 94720-5120; telephone: (510) 642-5507; fax: (510) 643-5698; e-mail: <[email protected]>.

BACKGROUND OF THETRAINING PROJECT

The China Capacity Building Project on OccupationalSafety and Health took place over two years, beginningin 2000 and ending in 2002. It focused on building thecapacity of factory workers and managers in China toidentify and resolve workplace health and safety prob-lems in factories producing shoes for major multina-tional footwear companies. The project was initiated byan unusual collaboration between nongovernmentalorganizations, leading footwear manufacturers, con-tract factories, and U.S.-based occupational profession-als and educators.

It had two primary goals: 1) to train workers, super-visors, and managers in three footwear factories in thePearl River Delta (Guangdong Province) in occupa-tional safety and health principles; and 2) to facilitatethe inclusion of workers as full, active members ofplant-wide health and safety committees. A long-termgoal of the project was to set an example not only forplants producing for international brands, but alsofor locally owned workplaces producing for the Chi-nese market.8

A grant from the MacArthur Foundation and con-tributions from the three participating footwear manu-facturers funded project activities.

The project included a series of organizational meet-ings, a formal needs-assessment process with stakehold-ers, curriculum development, development and imple-mentation of a four-day health and safety trainingprogram for 90 people, capacity building and healthand safety committee support efforts, individual com-

mittee initiatives, and an impact-evaluation process. Acritical aspect of making the project successful wasdesigning and developing a culturally appropriate, par-ticipatory training program.

PROJECT ORGANIZATION AND STAFFING:CREATING NEW COLLABORATIONS

The project was designed and conducted by staff fromthree U.S.-based organizations: Garrett Brown from theMaquiladora Health and Safety Support Network(MHSSN), a volunteer network of occupational healthand safety professionals who provide information, tech-nical assistance, and on-site instruction regarding work-place hazards to “maquiladora” (foreign-owned) plantsalong the U.S.–Mexico border; Betty Szudy from theLabor Occupational Health Program (LOHP), a publicservice program of the University of California atBerkeley that provides action-oriented training, educa-tional materials, and policy and legal analysis for arange of health and safety issues on a local, national,and international basis; and Dara O’Rourke, a profes-sor of labor and environmental policy at UC Berkeleywho researches global systems of production as well ascodes of conduct and monitoring systems.

In November 2000, U.S.-based project coordinatorsbrought together representatives of Adidas–Salomon,Nike, and Reebok (three transnational brands); YueYuen II (YYII), Pegasus Shoes, and Kong Tai Shoes(KTS), (contractors for the three respective brands);and four nongovernmental organizations (NGOs):Asia Monitor Resource Center (AMRC), Chinese Work-ing Women Network (CWN), Hong Kong Christian

358 • Szudy et al. www.ijoeh.com • INT J OCCUP ENVIRON HEALTH

The 90 participants of the course included 15 workers and five supervisors from each of the three footwear factories,22 representatives from four Hong Kong-based nongovernmental organizations, and eight labor practices staffmembers from Adidas, Nike, and Reebok. (Courtesy of Labor Occupational Health Program)

Industrial Committee (HKCIC), and the Hong KongConfederation of Trades Unions (HKCTU).

At this initial meeting held in Hong Kong, all agreedto participate in a project that would include a four-daytraining program for 90 participants at the Yue Yuen IIplant in Dongguan, China, in August 2001 and a post-training period of technical assistance. The partiesdeveloped a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU),agreeing to a set of common written goals that gov-erned the project, and also formed a project-coordi-nating committee consisting of representatives fromeach participating organization. This committee metregularly during the two years. The MOU establishedthe structure, organization, and terms of the project,and was key in allowing organizations with differingperspectives and agendas to work together toward acommon goal. For a copy of the MOU and additionalbackground on the project, see <www.igc.org/mhssn>.

Juliana So, coordinator of the Chinese WorkingWomen Network (CWN), agreed to work in a part-time,paid position as the Local Project Coordinator. TheCWN is a grassroots organization, based in southernChina, that provides training and information aboutlabor rights and health and safety to young womenworkers employed in factories in the Guangdongregion. It was critical to have a Local Project Coordina-tor who was fluent in Cantonese (the language spokenin Hong Kong), Mandarin (the language spoken bymost migrant workers in the factory, who were fromwestern and northern China), and English (the lan-guage spoken by the U.S.-based project coordinators).

DESIGNING THE TRAINING

As outlined in the Memorandum of Understanding,the 90 participants for the training program weredrawn from four populations:

• shop-floor level workers from the participatingplants (15 from each of the three plants);

• supervisors/managers with departmental or plant-wide responsibilities for occupational health andsafety in the participating plants (five from each ofthe three plants);

• labor practices/health and safety staff of the partici-pating manufacturers of the brands (a total of eightfrom three companies); and

• staff members or active volunteers from the partici-pating NGOs in Hong Kong and China (a total of 22from four organizations).

The participants were intended to be individualswho were currently involved, or would play future roles,in plant-wide or departmental health and safety com-mittees. Each participating organization designed itsown method for selecting its designated participants.The MOU specified that the contractors and brand

manufacturers should select shop-floor workers andsupervisors in such a way that all participants wouldfeel able to speak freely and openly during the training.They were also encouraged to send a significantnumber of female workers to the training, since youngwomen are the majority of the workforce. Implement-ing the MOU played a critical role in overcoming localcultural bias towards sending a majority of male partic-ipants and resulted in all three factories sending at least50% female participants from the shop floor.

U.S. project coordinators and the Local ProjectCoordinator conducted a series of written and oralinterviews and a needs assessment with workers, NGOs,and the company representatives who would be comingto the training. The two-page written needs assessmentwas designed to learn more about participants’ specificjobs, what they hoped to learn during the training,their literacy skills (including the kind of written mate-rials they were comfortable reading and working with),and their current knowledge about health and safety. Atotal of 72 participants completed the written surveyand participated in follow-up interviews in the springof 2001. Table 1 lists issues identified as having priorityby factory participants:

The needs assessment was conducted on site at thethree shoe factories, which gave the training team an

VOL 9/NO 4, OCT/DEC 2003 • www.ijoeh.com Action-based Training Project • 359

TABLE 1. Knowledge and Skills Needed by Participants(n = 42)

No. %

Q1: Which of the following technicaltopics would you like to learnabout?

Electrical and machine hazards 38 90.5Chemical hazards 36 85.7Ergonomic problems 28 66.7Stress 24 57.1Heat 20 47.6Noise 17 40.5Reproductive hazards 10 23.8

Q2: Which skills would you like todevelop?

Understanding the law andevaluating problems (legal rights) 36 85.7

Effective communication 34 81.0How health and safety committees

work 29 69.1Developing a plan to solve health

and safety problems 18 42.9Measuring noise and chemical

exposures 17 40.5How to collect information about

workplace hazards 16 38.1Training others about this information 16 38.1How to use respirators and gloves

correctly (personal protectiveequipment) 11 26.2

Learning how to read chemicallabels 9 21.4

opportunity to see the types and severity of hazardsinvolved in shoe production, as well as to view on-sitedormitory housing, food canteens, and medical clinicservices. The needs-assessment results pointed out thatincluding certain topics such as effective communica-tion, stress, and sexual harassment (which had not beenincluded in the original list of training topics) would bekey to making the training credible and successful.

TRAINING AGENDA AND APPROACH:AN ACTION-BASED LEARNING PROCESS

The survey results were incorporated into the designand development of the four-day (32 hours) trainingprogram and curriculum. The training was designed tobe interactive, with the goal of involving participants inan action-based learning process. Topics were pre-sented in the classroom using a range of participatorytraining methods, including small-group exercises, roleplaying, games, and visual demonstrations, thatinvolved participants in seeing, hearing, applying, andevaluating the information.

The four-day training program was held in August2001 on site at the YY II plant in Dongguan City, allow-ing significant training time to be devoted to hands-onexercises and walk-around inspections in the produc-tion areas of the plant. For example, a classroom lec-ture on noise was followed by an activity that sent par-ticipants in small teams to the factory to conduct noiseexposure surveys with a sound-level meter. The teamsthen returned to the classroom and reported theirfindings, including suggestions for reducing the noiselevels in the departments surveyed.8

The training team developed overall goals for thetraining that emphasized key concepts:

• Learning about hazards involves using a number of“tools,” such as interviewing workers and supervisors,

conducting walk-around inspections, taking meas-urements, making other observations, gathering andreviewing fact sheets, and studying regulations.

• Solving health and safety problems requires a “systems”approach that looks at every aspect of the situation.

• Effective health and safety programs require activeworker involvement at every step, as well as a seriouscommitment from management.

• Developing effective communication skills is a keypart of learning how to present a problem, includ-ing ideas for solutions.

A complete agenda and a copy of the training goals areposted at <www.igc.org/mhssn>.

Given the large size of the training group, it wasdivided into two separate groups of 45 people, withboth utilizing the same agenda (with staggered trainingtimes) and a shared training team. The six-person pri-mary training team included Betty Szudy and Pam TauLee from UC Berkeley’s LOHP, Garrett Brown fromMHSSN, Dara O’Rourke from UC Berkeley, and Chris-tine Chiu and Pak Ip, industrial hygienists on the occu-pational health and safety staff at Hong Kong Univer-sity of Science and Technology (HUST).

Early on, the training team recognized the chal-lenges of having both workers and supervisors from thethree factories together in the same room. How couldthey design activities that would allow workers to speakhonestly and openly about hazards without fearing thatthey might lose their jobs? All training methods tried totake into account issues of confidentiality and fear ofspeaking up.

For example, the health and safety committee activ-ity utilized a training method called “popcorn,” whichallows participants to voice their ideas in a safe manner.An individual writes an idea on a piece of paper, thencrumples it up and tosses it into the center of a circleor into a basket, making the comment anonymous.This method allowed all participants to voice theiropinions about sensitive issues such as selection of com-mittee members, rules that would help make the com-mittee a safe place to speak up (particularly for work-ers), and possible challenges the committee would facein trying to be effective.

Similarly, the stress workshop used a picture of afemale factory worker being touched by a male supervi-sor as a visual “trigger” to introduce the topic of stress atthe workplace and sexual harassment, a key problem inmany of the factories. Participants were asked to describewhat they saw in the picture, and volunteers were askedto role play possible solutions to the problem.

This served as an icebreaker and a quick needs assess-ment about how participants would solve the problem.Participants then partnered up to interview each otherabout other “stressors” in their workplace. After listen-ing to each other, they summarized each problem inthree or four words. Relying on help from the transla-


A participant uses a T-shirt as a visual aid to explainwhich parts of the body and which specific organs areaffected by the chemicals used in shoe manufactur-ing. (Courtesy of Labor Occupational Health Program)

tors, the trainer collected all the examples in a bowl,and picked several issues that came up repeatedly. Smallgroups then worked together to identify all the ways thissource of stress could be reduced or eliminated, andreported back to the large group on their discussion.

The training team also included local trainers fromHong Kong and China to provide their expertise andcultural knowledge about key topics. Apo Leung fromthe Asian Monitor Resource Center conducted a livelysession on effective communication skills, and Dr. QiuChuang Yi from the Guanzhou Prevention and Treat-ment Center for Occupational Disease shared hisknowledge about Chinese labor laws and health andsafety regulations, along with his experiences treatinginjured Chinese workers.

The language of instruction was Mandarin Chinese.The remarks of instructors speaking in English or Can-tonese were translated into Mandarin by a rotating teamof three translators. Flipcharts and other visual aids wereposted in both languages. Training through interpretersproved to be difficult, because two of the three transla-tors were not fluent in English. It is critical to have flexi-ble, skilled translators fluent in both languages and tobudget the funds necessary to hire experienced people.

TRAINING CURRICULUM: DEVELOPING ANEASY-TO-USE REFERENCE WITH PICTURES

The training curriculum was developed by LOHP andMHSSN and drew on a number of existing health andsafety publications, including the International LaborOrganization series “Your Health and Safety at Work.”

The 500-page training manual was first developed inEnglish and then translated into Chinese, with a copyfor each participant.9 The page numbering in the twoversions was the same so the binder could be easilyreferred to by either English- or Chinese-speaking train-ers. It was designed to be easy to read, with simple defi-nitions of key health and safety topics, and with numer-ous pictures to illustrate the text. Efforts were made tolocate and include drawings that featured women work-ers, Asian workers, and large factory settings.

The manual was designed to be comprehensive sothat it could serve as a reference for future work of theplant health and safety committees. It includes 13 sec-tions on different health and safety topics such as chem-ical hazards; identifying, evaluating, and controllinghazards; ergonomics (the design of work); occupationalhealth and safety laws in China; health and safety com-mittees; inspection procedures; and training others.

FOLLOW-UP PLANNING SESSION:COMMITTING TO ACTION

On the fourth day of the training program, five groupsof participants (workers and supervisors from each ofthe three factories, representatives of the NGOs, and

the brand manufacturers’ labor practices staff) met forseveral hours to map out a follow-up plan to the train-ing. The groups utilized a simple written action-plan-ning form to help prioritize their health and safetygoals and specific steps they would take over the nextsix months to accomplish these goals.

The factory groups (workers and supervisors) alsopracticed holding a “mock” health and safety committeemeeting, with the goal of identifying ways to allow every-one involved, especially workers, to speak up and beheard. The NGO participants met separately to discusshow they would link health and safety to their ownorganizations’ work and how they could be resources forthe three different factory health and safety committees.

The entire group—all 90 participants—then mettogether to hear presentations of the individualgroups’ action plan. Each of the three factory groupsproposed establishing or expanding plant-wide safetycommittees with the training participants at their core.The brands’ representatives each pledged upper-man-agement support for the efforts at their contractors’facilities. The NGOs offered their support to all theplant committees, while also elaborating plans forother occupational safety and health activities.

PRE/POST TRAINING KNOWLEDGESURVEYS AND RESULTS:ASSESSING THE IMPACT

Training participants were asked to fill out the sameknowledge-assessment worksheet on the first day of thefour-day training program and again at the end of the


An “inspection team” of training participants takes notesafter observing a particular job task and interviewing theworkers to learn more about job hazards as part of fieldexercises in the factory where the training was held.(Courtesy of Labor Occupational Health Program)

training. The comparison showed a significant increasein knowledge and problem-solving skills as a result ofthe training.

Prior to the training, less than 25% of the 90 partici-pants felt sure about their knowledge of four key healthand safety concepts. After completing the training, 75%of the participants stated they were “very sure” abouttheir knowledge in these four key areas. They alsoreported that they had learned most of what they knewabout these concepts in the four-day training workshop.

The participants also showed gains in knowledge ofhealth and safety committees and problem-solvingapproaches. Prior to the training, the most frequentlyreported way of getting additional information abouthealth and safety problems at work was through books(23 participants). After the training, a majority of par-ticipants (58) responded to this same question thatthey would interview and communicate with workersand listen to their opinions to get additional informa-tion about problems.

The participants were also asked to give feedbackabout the topics, activities, methods, and usefulness ofthe training. They found the factory inspections andon-site practice to be the most useful, along with thesessions on communication, ergonomics, chemicalhazards, noise, and stress. They also gave positive feed-back about the participatory training methods, and theopportunities to talk with instructors (through transla-tors) at lunch and during breaks.

ESTABLISHING AND EVALUATING HEALTHAND SAFETY COMMITTEES

In the six-month period following the training, thefunctioning of the recently formed committees was

evaluated on site on two occasions. Several differentevaluation tools were utilized: written survey, small-group interviews, walk-around inspections, on-sitevisits, and formal presentations to the evaluators byeach health and safety committee.

Phase I Evaluation: Three Months after Training

In November 2001, Local Project Coordinator JulianaSo visited each plant and met with the safety commit-tees. All participants from the training workshop wereasked to complete another written survey. The surveyswere confidential, and asked participants to give feed-back about the usefulness of the August training as wellas information about their specific health and safetycommittee activities during the three months since theworkshop.

Over half the participants reported on the writtensurvey that they had used the materials in their binder,conducted a factory inspection, and participated intheir factory’s health and safety committee sinceAugust. The survey results also showed that the healthand safety committees were beginning to hold monthlymeetings, set up systems for reporting accidents, anddevelop outreach plans to inform workers and supervi-sors about the roles of the committee (see Table 2).

Juliana So then followed up the written surveys byholding in-person discussions with representatives ofthe health and safety committees at each of the threefactories. These discussions pointed out problems withthe committees that were not captured by the writtensurveys. Problems included: resistance from supervi-sors to the committee’s workplace inspections; frustra-tion about the committee’s lack of ability to actually ini-tiate health and safety changes on the shop floor;problems of shop-floor workers not getting salary orovertime while involved in committee activities; and ahesitancy by many shop-floor participants to speak upduring committee meetings.

She also met in Hong Kong with representatives ofthe four participating NGOs and completed evaluationsurveys with each of their participants from the train-ing. Three of the four NGOs played a critical role insupporting worker participation in the committees inthe months after the training. For example, AMRC andHKCIC helped monitor a union election in one factoryand are now providing training on how to run workercommittees. CWN staff conducted follow-up assess-ment with workers at all three plants.

Phase II Evaluation: Eight Months after Training

In March 2002, an evaluation delegation consisting ofJuliana So, project coordinators Garrett Brown andDara O’Rourke, and representatives from the AsiaMonitor Resource Center, Hong Kong Christian Indus-trial Committee, and Chinese Working Women Net-


Training participants practice monitoring noise levels inthe factory using a sound-level meter. (Courtesy ofLabor Occupational Health Program)

work visited each of the three factories involved in theproject. The delegation received a presentation oneach committee’s work, inspected areas of the plantwhere the committees had been active in identifyingand correcting hazards, met with the full safety com-mittee, and also met with the smaller group of full-timestaff members of each plant’s safety committee.

These visits identified several successes in the initialperiod after the training. At each of the three plants,the health and safety committees had begun regularinspections of production areas, identified safety andhealth hazards, and worked with the department man-agers and first-line supervisors to eliminate or reducethe identified hazards. The committees and their mem-bers were also learning how to effectively convey thisinformation to factory managers, labor practices staffof the brand manufacturers, and NGOs outside the fac-tories. In a number of cases, the committees had beenable to identify and correct previously unrecognizedhazards, as well as to highlight longstanding concernsof workers.5

KTS/Reebok Factory: Workers as Inspectors

At the 5,000-worker KTS facility (producing shoes forReebok), a safety committee with five separate compo-nents was established after the training workshop. Thecommittee included the 20 training participants, whichthey call the “Risk Improvement Team” (RIT). Theteam’s primary function is to conduct regular inspec-tions of the factory. The committee has becomeextremely adept at identifying hazards through inspec-tions, and then following up with visits to ensure timelycorrection. The team has four full-time safety inspec-tors (including two women), all of whom participatedin the August 2001 health and safety training. Thesecommittee members are paid their normal productionwages for serving on the health and safety team.

The RIT inspectors, who wear distinctive red capswhile conducting their walk-around inspections, givethe first-line supervisors a written notice of any identi-fied hazard with a deadline for correction. Deadlinesrange between two weeks and three months, depend-


TABLE 2. What Did Workers (n = 52) Learn?

No. %

Q1. Since the training, I have:Participated in my factory’s health and safety committee 47 90.4Used or reviewed the written health and safety materials in my binder 46 88.5Conducted a factory inspection at a plant 45 86.5Interviewed and listened to workers’ concerns about health and safety 36 69.2Tried to solve a health and safety problem 28 53.8Researched information about a specific health and safety problem 26 50.0Educated and trained others about a health and safety topic 25 48.1

Q2. Which of the following training topics were most useful to you?Health and safety committee information and training 43 82.7Inspections in the factory 37 71.2Group discussions 37 71.2Interviewing workers 31 59.6Learning from and meeting NGO representatives 29 55.8Practicing with equipment (noise monitors, smoke tubes ) 28 53.8Written materials 26 50.0Seeing a variety of teaching methods 25 48.1Learning from and meeting supervisors and workers from other factories 24 46.2

Q3. Since the training, the health and safety committee at my plant has:Conducted a workplace inspection 41 78.8Looked at MSDS or CSDS sheets 40 76.9Interviewed workers and supervisors 33 63.5Reviewed accident or monitoring reports 31 59.6Set up a system for reporting accidents, hazards, and worker suggestions 29 55.8Held regular meetings of the committee 21 40.4Developed an outreach plan to inform employees about the committee 17 32.7Taken action to try to resolve a specific health and safety problem 5 9.6

Q4. Since the training, the factory management has:Made an effort to promote the health and safety committee among workers and

supervisors 45 86.5Encouraged open communication among workers and supervisors about health

and safety 40 76.9Listened to health and safety concerns raised by workers on the committee 40 76.9Provided committee members with resources needed to function on committee 38 73.1Followed through on decisions made by the health and safety committee 36 69.2

ing of the severity of the hazard and difficulty of cor-recting it. The inspectors make follow-up visits toensure that the hazard abatement has occurred, and ifit is not corrected after three notices, the safety com-mittee takes the issue to higher managers.

In its first six months of work, the committee hadcompiled a binder about three inches thick of “tickets”given to supervisors during inspections and documen-tation of follow-up visits and hazard correction. Thecommittee has developed its own inspection checklistand a standardized accident-investigation form. Theresults of the accident investigations are posted in theaffected work areas. Each department of the plant hasa supervisor-selected health and safety coordinator whohas responsibility for tracking identified hazards andtheir correction.

The KTS committee also reported having benefitedfrom a technical assistance visit and interaction with theHong Kong Christian Industrial Committee, Asia Moni-tor Resource Center, and the newly formed Labor Edu-cation and Services Network, all based in Hong Kong.5

Pegasus/ Nike Factory:Conducting Accident Investigations

At the Pegasus plant (producing for Nike), a 60-member committee was formed, expanding an existinghealth and safety committee by adding the 20 partici-pants from the August health and safety training pro-gram and others. The workforce at Pegasus faced eco-nomic challenges after the training, with a resultingreduction in the workforce from approximately 16,000at the time of the training to 12,000 in March 2002.

Committee members at Pegasus have taken part informal investigations of accidents involving partialamputation of fingers and hair being caught in movingparts of equipment. The accident investigations haveresulted in new machine guarding being installed, andin work-practice changes that include wearing caps toprevent long hair from being caught in machinery. Thecommittee, largely male in composition, has three full-time members (one of whom is female). They havedeveloped a plant-specific inspection checklist andaccident investigation protocol.

The full-time committee members have trainedother members of the committee and the generalworkforce about chemical exposures, noise hazards,ergonomics, stress, and fire safety. Twice a week thecommittee shows a safety video in the plant’s canteenarea during the lunch break.

The Pegasus committee also organized activities for“Safety Month” at the plant, the first of the annual cam-paigns being conducted in March 2002. Pegasus, likethe two other plants, will be giving out “safety awards”for the production unit or department with the bestsafety record and activities.

Still, the Pegasus committee had some limitations.The committee was male-dominated despite an over-whelmingly female workforce. Members were givenlimited time each month away from their productiontasks to conduct committee work, and the hour-longinspections conducted by committee members eachmonth were not enough to accomplish a systematicevaluation of workplace hazards.5

Yue Yuen/Adidas Factory:Training Committee Members

At Yue Yuen II (producing for Adidas), a 100-membercommittee was formed covering four sub-factories withinthe 30,000-worker complex manufacturing for Adidas.The committee is divided into four subcommittees, eachmanaged by a full-time coordinator and staffed by 25 vol-unteer members. In its first six months, the YYII com-mittee focused on training committee members toenhance their knowledge of and confidence about work-place safety issues. Between August 2001 and March2002, there were regular monthly meetings, or “sym-posia,” of committee members, covering fundamental


After conducting an inspection of one department inthe factory to identify and evaluate hazards, partici-pants draw a visual map of the factory floor using dif-ferent colors to identify various hazards. (Courtesy ofLabor Occupational Health Program)

concepts of workplace health and safety, hazard-identifi-cation techniques, chemical handling and management,use of personal protective equipment, and fire safety.The symposia were held for one to two hours in theevenings, after a work shift, on unpaid time.

Each of the four subcommittees had a safety coordi-nator or “commissioner,” selected by management.Women made up 40–50% of the overall committee’smembership, although all four plant commissionersare male. Some committee members, as well as thelabor practices staff of adidas in Hong Kong, have ledhealth and safety training sessions. The committee alsodeveloped a program on “zero work-related injuries”that involved a competition among sub-factories.

At YY II, upper management has supported the com-mittee and committed to extending worker training.They see worker knowledge as a key component forimproving health and safety. The negative aspect of thistop-down management approach has been a resultinglack of democratic processes within the committee andgenerally weak participation from line-level workers.5

Nongovernmental Organizations:Connecting to the Factories

Three of the four participating nongovernmentalorganizations (NGOs) have also enhanced their workon health and safety issues following the August 2001training program.

Training participants from the Chinese WorkingWomen Network (CWN) included six young womenfrom various parts of China who had been workers inPearl River Delta factories before joining the CWNstaff. They provide occupational health and safetyinformation through their outreach work in CWN’sNanshan women workers’ center and through theirmobile van, the “Women’s Health Express,” which visitsindustrial areas in Guangdong Province. The CWN par-ticipants have adapted parts of the training binder fortheir educational activities, including integratinghealth and safety materials into their “Sister Whisper”newsletter distributed to plant workers.

The Asia Monitor Resource Center (AMRC) usedsome of the materials and training approaches andincorporated them into its own health and safety train-ing program. This included a seminar held in Cambo-dia in late 2001, as well as other ongoing educationalactivities.

The Hong Kong Christian Industrial Committee(HKCIC) has used the 2001 training program to moveforward with proposals to conduct similar health andsafety training sessions and related activities in otherindustries in China, such as toy production.

Both HKCIC and AMRC were invited in November2001 to the KTS plant to meet with the safety commit-tee for discussions on developing the committee’s activ-ities and strengthening interactions with the plant’s

union. HKCIC and AMRC have also continued theirrelationship with the two local industrial hygienists, PakIp and Christine Chiu, from Hong Kong University ofScience and Technology, who were instructors in theAugust training workshop. The two industrial hygien-ists have provided consultation on several health andsafety issues for both groups.

February 2003 Follow-up Meeting:Sharing Results 18 Months after Training

In February 2003, KTS hosted a meeting of the threeplant safety committees and representatives of threeHong Kong-based NGOs to exchange informationabout their work in the 18 months since the August2001 training and to provide additional training. Inaddition to 10–12 members from each of the threeplants’ committees, representatives were present fromAMRC, CWN, HKCIC, and the labor practices staffs ofAdidas, Nike, and Reebok.

The all-day meeting included reports from each ofthe three plants’ committees, a tour of the KTS facilitywhere hazards had been corrected by the plant com-mittee, and three simultaneous afternoon workshopson chemical management, China’s new occupationalhealth laws, and worker education and communica-tion, led by staff members of Nike, Adidas, and HKCIC,respectively. All three plant committees reportedprogress in establishing their ongoing inspections, acci-dent investigations, and employee training, but alsoreported similar challenges in gaining cooperationfrom low-level supervisors and improving the function-ing of the committees themselves.

SUCCESSES, CHALLENGES, AND LESSONSLEARNED

The China Capacity Building Project on OccupationalSafety and Health is in many ways a first-of-its-kindundertaking. At the final meeting of the multi-stake-holder Coordinating Committee, members noted thatproject successes include:

• Creation of young, but functioning, worker–man-agement health and safety committees, includingone committee supported by a democraticallyelected union. While the three committees vary inimportant ways, each is taking steps toward buildingworker participation.

• Providing training to committee members andNGOs using an action-based, participatory learningapproach that resulted in measurable knowledgegains about key principles of occupational safety andhealth.

• Producing a well-researched, easy-to-understandhealth and safety curriculum on core health andsafety topics in both English and Chinese.


• Expanding project participants’ knowledge of howhealth and safety committees organize themselves,carry out their activities, and involve workers in allaspects of a workplace health and safety program.

• Increasing the level of dialogue between plant man-agement, manufacturers of international brands,and NGOs and helping to lay the basis for additionaljoint projects.

• Increasing the interest in and awareness of safetyissues among all participants, and identifying areasfor further training and action.

The project also faced a number of challenges,including the need for:

• Additional training on technical subjects, effectivecommunication, and committee development.

• Increased management commitment and resourcesfor health and safety programs, especially moremembers, paid release time, and additional testingequipment and educational materials.

• Adjustment of committee members’ workloads sothat they are not also expected to meet their pro-duction quotas when they are undertaking commit-tee assignments.

• Development of networks of peer trainers to reachthousands of additional workers (and supervisors)employed in the factory.

• Overcoming longstanding “cultural barriers” to pro-mote meaningful worker involvement despite exist-ing hierarchical structures.

• Developing systems that encourage gender equality.

There are a number of lessons to be learned fromthe China Capacity Building Project that were criticalto its success and can benefit others involved in creat-ing meaningful workplace health and safety programs.Some of the most important were:

• It is essential to have commitment from top-level man-agement. The project had this from three transna-tional brand manufacturers, and they also worked tobuild support among their subcontractors, whose owntop managers also committed to the project.

• Building worker capacity and participation is centralto an effective worker health and safety program.This project’s focus on worker empowerment goesbeyond previous debates about codes and monitor-ing to practical hands-on concerns about the bestways to encourage participation.


Meeting at the 5,000-worker Kong Tai Shoes (KTS) factory in Longguan in March 2002 of the plant health and safetycommittee and the post-training evaluation team, consisting U.S.-based project coordinators Dara O’Rourke andGarrett Brown, Local Project Coordinator Juliana So, and Sanjiv Pandita, health and safety researcher from the AsiaMonitor Resource Center in Hong Kong. The plant health and safety committee is led by participants in the August2001 training. (Courtesy of Labor Occupational Health Program)

• Using action-based training approaches and partici-patory methods is effective even in a more tradition-ally structured learning culture such as China(where students often are hesitant to speak up inclassroom settings).

Workers globally share many common health andsafety concerns. While some of the lessons learned inthis project are unique to China, many of the successes,challenges, and results can apply to workplaces in dif-ferent countries and locations. This project can andshould be replicated elsewhere.

Public pressure can help make such projectshappen, and can make it easier to obtain funding andsupport. Media publicity and labor, community, andstudent advocacy about working conditions in theglobal economy have led to the development of codesof conduct, including improved health and safety prac-tices. This, in turn, has pressured transnational corpo-rations and their producers to begin committing tohealth and safety programs. In this atmosphere, pro-grams such as this are more likely to be successful.

Connecting projects such as this to larger issueswithin a country and within the global economy is keyto expanding civic participation and democracy. InChina, this project created increased connectionsbetween the NGOs and factory workers, as well as theNGOs and local technical people. It also broughttogether workers from three different factories whohad never met each other to learn together, shareexperiences, and discuss and practice the concept ofworker involvement. One factory experienced its firstdemocratic union election during this project, whichbenefited from the involvement of some health andsafety committee members and local NGOs.

In conclusion, there is no one perfect model forimproving factory conditions in China (or anywhereelse). However, this project, and the corporations, fac-tories, NGOs, workers, and supervisors involved, havedemonstrated that a well-designed training programcombined with management commitment, workerinvolvement, and support from NGOs and unions canhelp point the way toward improved systems of workerparticipation to reduce hazards in factories producinggoods for global consumers.

The authors thank Pam Tau Lee for sharing her analysis of the proj-ect; Eugene Darling for his assistance with editing this article; andthe staff of the Labor Occupational Health Program for their supportof international health and safety activities.

References

1. Collier R. Labor rights and wrongs: some U.S. firms work to cutabuses in Chinese factories. San Francisco Chronicle, May 17,2000.

2. Leung W. What can be done for the largest but deadliest manu-facturing center in the world? China Labour Bulletin, November2002. Available at <www.china-labour.org.hk>.

3. Cal/OSHA Reporter. Californians helping plant the seed ofworker safety and health in China. <www.cal-osha.com>.

4. Pan P. Poisoned back into poverty: as China embraces capitalism,hazards to workers rise. Washington Post, August 4, 2002.

5. O’Rourke D, Brown G, Szudy B. Improving worker health andsafety in China: evaluating the problems of worker committees.Unpublished, 2002.

6. LARIC. No illusions: against the global cosmetic SA8000. HongKong: Labor Rights in China, June 1999.

7. Bush D. The Asia Health and Safety Training Project—trainingactivists in Indonesia, final report, February 2003. Available at<www.igc.org/mhssn>.

8. Brown G. Building health and safety committees in giantfootwear factories in China. The Synergist, March 2003; 14(3).

9. Labor Occupational Health Program (LOHP) and MaquiladoraHealth and Safety Support Network (MHSSN). Health andSafety Workshop, Dongguan, China, 2001.


Developing an Action-based Health and Safety Training...

Documents

Transcript of Developing an Action-based Health and Safety Training...