Elon Musk, co-founder and CEO of American electric vehicle manufacturer Tesla Motors.
CARSON CITY, Nev. (AP) — Tesla finds home in Nevada! Gov. Brian Sandoval announced Thursday that Nevada won a high-stakes battle with four other states for Tesla Motors’ coveted battery factory, but the win comes with a hefty price tag — up to $1.3 billion in tax breaks and other incentives over 20 years that state lawmakers still must approve.
An “Assembled in the USA” stamp is seen at the side of a box containing a 32-inch television set in the warehouse of Element Electronics, in Winnsboro, South Carolina. Element’s 315,000-square-foot plant in South Carolina has six assembly lines making 32- and 40-inch TVs that are now available in all of Walmart’s more than 4,000 U.S. Stores. REUTERS/Chris Keane
Walmart has pledged to buy an additional $250 billion in US-made products. But finding quality, low-cost US made goods is proving a challenge. How Walmart is acting as a catalyst for ‘Made in the USA’ manufacturing.
Picture Eugene Hoshiko, File/Associated Press
U.S. manufacturing becoming low cost over the past decade compared with factories in China, Brazil and most of the world’s other major economies.
So says a new private study, which found that rising wages and higher energy costs have diminished China’s long-standing edge over the United States. So has a boom in U.S. shale gas production. It’s reduced U.S. natural gas prices and slowed the cost of electricity.
The Boston Consulting Group is issuing a report on its study of manufacturing costs in the 25 biggest exporting countries. Only seven of those countries had lower manufacturing costs than the United States did this year. And since 2004, U.S. manufacturers have improved their competitiveness compared with every major exporter except India, Mexico and the Netherlands.In 2004, for example, manufacturing in China cost 14 percent less than manufacturing in the United States. By this year, the China advantage had narrowed to 5 percent. If the trends continue, Boston Consulting found, U.S. manufacturing will be less expensive than China’s by 2018.
Over the past decade, labor costs, adjusted to reflect productivity gains, shot up 187 percent at factories in China, compared with 27 percent in the United States. The value of China’s currency has risen more than 30 percent against the U.S. dollar over the past decade.
The higher Chinese currency made goods produced in China and sold abroad comparatively more expensive. And foreign goods became comparatively more affordable in China.
Chinese electricity costs rose 66 percent, more than double the United States’ 30 percent increase. The start of large-scale U.S. shale gas production in 2005 has helped contain electricity bills in the United States and neighboring Canada and Mexico.
China, too, has reserves for shale gas. But it will need years to develop them.
“This is not something you can turn on overnight,” said Justin Rose, a partner at Boston Consulting and co-author of the study.
Brazil has lost even more ground than China. In 2004, manufacturing was 3 percent cheaper in Brazil than in the United States. By 2014, Brazil was 23 percent more expensive. Brazilian factories didn’t improve efficiency enough to offset rising energy and labor costs.
The countries where manufacturing was cheaper than in the United States are Indonesia, India, Mexico, Thailand, China, Taiwan and Russia.
Australia was the most expensive country for manufacturing. Its costs were 30 percent higher than those in the United States.
The survey doesn’t include transportation costs, which vary depending on where goods are shipped. Several countries also face obstacles not captured by Boston Consulting’s manufacturing cost index — from corruption to inefficient government bureaucracies.
SOURCE: Washington Post
At a time when flag-waving couldn’t be more in fashion, David MacNeil knows a thing or two about standing up for American products. Or at least resting your muddy boots on them. While creating jobs in the process.
Even so, we’re now manufacturing more and more stuff in the United States. It’s not that manufacturing left the U.S. Instead, the manufacturing jobs did.
|
“We have begun manufacturing the Mac Pro in Austin,” Cook wrote in a posting yesterday on Twitter. “It’s the most powerful Mac ever.”
The cylindrical machine, which runs on Intel Corp.’s latest Xeon chip, will be available to order today at a starting price of $2,999, Apple said. While companies such as Google Inc. and Lenovo Group Ltd. are doing some final assembly in the U.S. of parts made overseas, Cook said in an interview in October that Apple is manufacturing — not just putting together — the Mac Pro’s metal parts in the U.S. “The difference with us is that we’re taking a bottoms-up approach,” Cook said at the time. “We don’t want to just assemble the Mac Pro here, we want to make the whole thing here. This is a big deal.” Apple’s partners are using industrial molds and production processes that were developed in the U.S., he said. |
|
High End
The newest version of the Mac Pro, a top-of-the-line computer used by graphic designers and filmmakers who require the fastest performance, is going on sale at the height of the holiday shopping season in customizable configurations starting at $2,999 and $3,999 depending on the chip’s power and amount of memory.
The sleek, rounded black machine, which looks like a space-age trash can or a small jet engine, is 9.9 inches tall and is an eighth the size of the current Mac Pro, the company said. Intel’s Xeon processors will let it handle some calculations at twice the speed of the existing model, Apple has said, and will use 70 percent less power because of its smaller size. The computer comes with 256 gigabytes of flash-based storage, expandable to one terabyte — the equivalent of 1,000 gigabytes.
Twenty States
Apple executive Phil Schiller said in October that more than 2,000 people in 20 states were working on the Mac Pro. The Cupertino, California-based company released a video of the highly automated processes used to build the machine, showing a puck-shaped plug of aluminum being stamped into the shape of the cylindrical shell, and then passed through a series of robots for polishing, anodizing and painting. Other machines insert electronic components onto circuit boards.
The last frames of the video show the words “Designed in Cupertino, Assembled in the USA” being etched on the bottom of the machine by laser. Under U.S. Federal Trade Commission regulations, companies can’t include the term “Assembled in USA” if that process only includes final piecing together of imported parts “in a simple ‘screwdriver’ operation in the U.S.”
So far, the company’s push isn’t poised to have a big impact. Of Apple’s $170.9 billion in annual revenue, more than 70 percent of that comes from the iPhone and iPad tablet, which are built in China. The new Mac Pro will probably contribute less than 1 percent of Apple’s sales in 2014, said Gene Munster, an analyst at Piper Jaffray Cos. He predicts the company will sell 1.1 million Mac Pros in 2014, compared with 300 million iPhones and iPads.
Google, Lenovo
Other large technology companies have also been doing more work in the U.S., yet few have begun manufacturing components in the country. Google, which makes the rival Android mobile operating system and Motorola smartphones, has been assembling its Moto X device at a Flextronics International Ltd. factory near Fort Worth, Texas, hiring more than 2,000 people. In June, Lenovo said it was adding 115 people to work on final assembly of PCs in Whitsett, North Carolina.
“We are designing, engineering and assembling Moto X in the USA,” Gabe Madway, a spokesman for Motorola, said in an e-mail. “Our parts come from all over but are assembled and in some cases made in the U.S.”
While Beijing-based Lenovo, the world’s largest PC maker, isn’t doing fabrication in the U.S., the automation equipment used at its Whitsett plant was made in the country and the company uses packing materials from local vendors, said Milanka Muecke, a spokeswoman.
Labor Conditions
Apple has faced stepped-up scrutiny of its overseas labor in recent years. Allegations of use of underage workers, forced overtime and other infractions have led the company to investigate conditions at China-based manufacturing partners Hon Hai Precision Industry Co. and Pegatron Corp. Apple has joined the Fair Labor Association, and publishes regular results of hundreds of factory audits in a Supplier Responsibility Report.
In December 2012, Cook told Bloomberg Businessweek that the company would spend $100 million to build a new version of one of its Mac models in the U.S. In testimony before the U.S. Senate in May, Cook said the Mac Pro would be assembled in Texas using parts made in Illinois and Florida and equipment made in Kentucky and Michigan. And last month, the company said a new Arizona plant will employ 2,000 people to produce a glass alternative made of synthetic sapphires that are increasingly being used in smartphones to cover camera lenses and home buttons.
Rebuilding Expertise
Cook declined to say how many total jobs Apple might create in the U.S. The biggest challenges have been getting more suppliers to set up shop, and re-establishing production-related expertise that has been disappearing since big technology companies started turning to foreign companies for manufacturing in the 1990s and 2000s, he said.
“We’re responsible for 2,000 jobs so far, and we’ll see how high that goes,” Cook said in the October interview. “The important thing is to re-develop the skills.”
Some of Apple’s suppliers are already taking steps to boost their operations in the U.S. Last month, Hon Hai said it would spend $30 million to build a factory in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. Hon Hai CEO Terry Gou said the focus at that plant would be on developing automation technologies, not creating job-intensive production lines.
Given the lower labor costs and smooth supply chain Apple has built in Asia, the co
mpany
may never bring high-volume manufacturing of devices such as the iPhone back to the U.S., said Mike Fawkes, who oversaw Hewlett-Packard Co.’s supply-chain operations until 2008. While labor costs in China have been rising in recent years, they are still 60 percent lower than those in the U.S., according to Boston Consulting Group.
“It’s a positive sign to see Hon Hai further establish its U.S. presence,” said Fawkes. “That said, a $30 million factory is a drop in the bucket for manufacturing of any consequence.”
But this is likely to be just the beginning. We project that the U.S., as a result of its increasing competitiveness in manufacturing, will capture $70 billion to $115 billion in annual exports from other nations by the end of the decade. About two-thirds of these export gains could come from production shifts to the U.S. from leading European nations and Japan. By 2020, higher U.S. exports, combined with production work that will likely be “reshored” from China, could create 2.5 million to 5 million American factory and service jobs associated with increased manufacturing.
Our perspective is based on shifts in cost structures that increasingly favor U.S. manufacturing. In the first two reports in our Made in America, Again series, we explained how China’s once overwhelming production-cost advantage over the U.S. is rapidly eroding because of higher wages and other factors—and how these trends are likely to boost U.S. manufacturing in specific industries. Below, we focus on America’s increasing cost-competitiveness in manufacturing compared with leading advanced economies that are major exporters.
Our analysis suggests that the U.S. is steadily becoming one of the lowest-cost countries for manufacturing in the developed world. We estimate that by 2015, average manufacturing costs in the five major advanced export economies that we studied—Germany, Japan, France, Italy, and the U.K.—will be 8 to 18 percent higher than in the U.S. Among the biggest drivers of this advantage will be the costs of labor (adjusted for productivity), natural gas, and electricity. As a result, we estimate that the U.S. could capture up to 5 percent of total exports from these developed countries by the end of the decade. The shift will be supported by a significant U.S. advantage in shipping costs in important trade routes compared with other major manufacturing economies.
These shifting cost dynamics are likely to have a significant impact on world trade. China and the major developed economies account for around 75 percent of global exports. And the U.S. export surge will be felt across a wide range of U.S. industries.
The most profound impact will likely be on industrial groups that account for the bulk of global trade, such as transportation equipment, chemicals, machinery, and computer and electronic products. Production gains will come in several forms. In some cases, companies will increasingly use the U.S. as a low-cost export base for the rest of the world. In other cases, U.S. production will displace imports as both U.S. and foreign companies relocate the manufacturing of goods sold in the U.S. that otherwise would have been made offshore.
The full impact of the shifting cost advantage will take several years to be felt in terms of new production capacity. And the magnitude of the job gains will depend heavily on the degree to which the U.S. can continue to enhance its global competitiveness. One of the biggest challenges facing U.S. manufacturers is the supply of skilled labor. As we explained in a previous publication, however, our analysis shows that, in the short term, any U.S. manufacturing skills gap is unlikely to be significant enough to curtail a U.S. manufacturing resurgence. Rather, such shortages are more of a long-term risk if action is not taken soon to train and recruit new skilled workers.
Companies should, of course, continue to maintain diversified manufacturing operations around the world. But at the same time, they must be aware that the structural changes in production cost structures represent a potential paradigm shift for global manufacturing that warrants immediate attention.
The Pendulum Swings Back
For much of the past four decades, manufacturing work has been migrating from the world’s high-cost to its low-cost economies. Generally, this has meant a transfer of factory jobs of all kinds from the U.S. to abroad.
The pendulum finally is starting to swing back—and in the years ahead, it could be America’s turn to be on the receiving end of production shifts in many industries. In previous reports, we cited a number of examples of companies that have shifted production to the U.S. from China and other low-cost nations. These companies range from big multinationals like Ford and NCR to smaller U.S. makers of everything from kitchenware and plastic coolers to headphones. More recently, computer giant Lenovo opened a plant to assemble Think-brand laptops, notebooks, and tablets in North Carolina. Toshiba Industrial has moved production of its hybrid-electric vehicle motors from Japan to Houston. Airbus has broken ground on a $600 million assembly line in Mobile, Alabama, for its A320 family of jetliners; the facility will create up to 1,000 high-skilled jobs. Flextronics, one of the world’s largest electronics-manufacturing-services companies, has announced that it will invest $32 million in a product innovation center in Silicon Valley. The company’s CEO was quoted in the Wall Street Journal as saying that Flextronics may need to add 1 million square feet of manufacturing capacity in the U.S. over the next five years, depending on economic conditions.
There also is early evidence that foreign manufacturers are starting to move production to or expand production capacity in the U.S. for export around the world.
While the impact of this trend on U.S. jobs is currently modest, we expect a significant increase in such announcements starting around 2015, as the economic case for reshoring to the U.S. grows stronger—and as companies adjust their global manufacturing footprints accordingly.
The U.S. as a Low-Cost Country
The U.S. now has a distinct production-cost advantage compared with other developed economies that are leading manufacturers. We estimate that due to three factors alone—labor, natural gas, and electricity—average manufacturing costs in the U.K. will be 8 percent higher than in the U.S. by 2015. Costs will be 10 percent higher in Japan, 16 percent higher in Germany and in France, and 18 percent higher in Italy. (See Exhibit 1.) There are three key drivers of this cost advantage.
An added advantage of the U.S. labor market is its relative flexibility. The Fraser Institute ranks the U.S. as the world’s third-most-favorable economy in terms of labor market regulation. In contrast, Japan and the U.K. rank 14 and 15, Italy ranks 72, France ranks 94, and Germany ranks 112.
A major reason for this high ranking is that it is far easier and less costly in the U.S. than in most other advanced economies to adjust the size of the workforce in response to business conditions. In Germany, for example, we estimate government-mandated costs of approximately $8 million to shutter an average, 200-worker plant and more than $40 million to close a 1,000-worker plant. These costs are associated with the need to comply with rules governing severance pay and the advance notice that must be given to long-term employees. However, the actual cost of shutting a German factory can be significantly higher. German law mandates that workers may remain on the job, at full pay, for anywhere from a few months to more than a year, depending on how long they have been employed by the company, while layoff terms are being negotiated and after notification of a layoff has been received. Specific union contracts, asset write-downs, requirements to retrain workers, and other factors can also add to exit costs. These are major considerations when European companies decide where to make new long-term investments in manufacturing capacity.
Energy
Rapid technological progress in hydraulic fracturing is making it more economically feasible to unlock vast U.S. natural gas and oil deposits from shale. Since 2003, U.S. production of shale gas increased more than tenfold. This has helped push down the U.S. wholesale price of natural gas by 51 percent since 2005. By 2020, recovery costs from shale are expected to be half what they were in 2005—giving the U.S. a much larger supply of inexpensive natural gas. By 2035, U.S. shale-gas production is projected to double again, to 12 trillion cubic feet.
Most public attention to this development has focused on the implications for U.S. energy security. Less appreciated is the fact that cheap domestic sources of natural gas translate into a significant competitive advantage for a number of U.S.-based industries. Natural gas costs anywhere from 2.6 to 3.8 times higher in Europe and Japan than in the U.S. (See Exhibit 3.) The American advantage will likely grow further in the future: the most recent estimates suggest that the U.S. has more than 350 trillion cubic feet of proven shale-gas reserves, plus another 1,600 trillion cubic feet of potential shale-gas resources. That is more than four times the reserves of Western Europe. Japan’s reserves of both shale and conventional gas are negligible.
There are two important implications for industry. First, natural gas is a key feedstock for chemicals and plastics and is a significant cost in the manufacture of primary metals, paper, synthetic textiles, and nonmetallic mineral products. Second, gas-fired power plants are an important source of electricity in the U.S. So cheap natural gas will contribute to keeping power costs lower for U.S.-based industry. Industrial electricity prices are currently 61 percent higher in France, 92 percent higher in the U.K., 107 percent higher in Germany, 135 percent higher in Japan, and 287 percent higher in Italy. Lower electricity rates add a further cost advantage of several percentage points to energy-intensive U.S.-based industries such as metals and paper.
Shipping Rates
Our calculations of manufacturing costs in the U.S. and other developed economies did not factor in a projection for shipping expenses. On several important international trade routes, however, transportation costs give U.S.-based manufacturers another significant advantage. The large trade deficits that the U.S. has run up in the past decade have had a perverse impact on the shipping industry. Containers have been arriving in U.S. ports filled with imported products—and sometimes departing empty. The ports of Los Angeles, Long Beach, New York, Seattle, and Tacoma all process more than twice as many U.S. imports as exports. Meanwhile, capacity at U.S. ports nearly doubled between 2000 and 2008. As a result, the capacity utilization rate at U.S. ports was only around 54 percent as of 2010—one of the lowest rates in the world. In Europe, ports in 2010 were operating at 59 percent of capacity. Utilization rates were at 69 percent in Northeast Asia and 76 percent in Southeast Asia.
The imbalanced trade flow has translated into low outbound-freight costs on a number of important trade routes. In late 2011 and early 2012, it cost an average of $3,900 per 40-foot equivalent unit (FEU), or around 72 cubic meters of container space, to ship goods from Yokohama to Rotterdam. The comparable shipping rate from New York City was $1,400. Although freight costs from the west coast of the U.S. to Japan are only slightly lower than those from Europe to Japan, U.S. exporters have an advantage because the shipping distance is shorter, meaning they can more quickly get their goods to Japanese buyers. Because so many shipping containers from the U.S. to China are returning empty, freight costs from the U.S. to China are particularly cheap—just $850 per FEU. That compares with $700 per FEU from neighboring Japan. As a result, Japan’s proximity to China will not necessarily be enough to offset the U.S. advantage in lower overall production costs for many products that are not time sensitive.
One event that c
ould sign
ificantly change the cost balance, of course, is a sharp depreciation of the euro against the U.S. dollar. The dollar did indeed increase in value from around $1.60 per euro in early 2008 to around $1.20 per euro in mid-2012 as a result of the global financial crisis. But the dollar would have to appreciate even more dramatically—to below $1 per euro—for Germany, France, and Italy to approach cost parity with the U.S. by 2015. We will continue to monitor this and other cost factors as we continue our research on the competitiveness of the major manufacturing economies.
Many may assume that most of the production displaced from these developed economies will shift to China rather than to the U.S. But for reasons we explained in an earlier report in this series (Made in America, Again: Why Manufacturing Will Return to the U.S., BCG Focus, August 2011), wages have been rising so rapidly in China that its cost advantage over the U.S. by 2015 is projected to be only around 5 percent for many goods exported to North America. When logistics, shipping costs, and the many risks of operating extended global supply chains are factored in, it will be more economical to make many goods now imported from China in the U.S. if they are consumed in the U.S.
The Impact on U.S. Exports
The U.S. export sector is already a little-noticed bright spot in the U.S. economy. Since 2005, export growth has averaged nearly 8 percent per year—despite the global recession of 2008 to 2009. Exports of U.S. goods, excluding food and beverages, now account for around 10 percent of U.S. GDP, the largest share in five decades. In the 1960s, when the U.S. was the world’s dominant manufacturer, exports accounted for only around 4 percent of GDP. What’s more, while the share of global exports by Western Europe and Japan declined between 2005 and 2010, U.S. exports have held steady at around 11 percent.
This momentum is likely to accelerate. Because of lower costs, we project that by the end of the decade, the U.S. could capture $20 billion to $55 billion in annual exports from the four Western European nations we studied, which would represent 2 to 5 percent of those nations’ total exports. In addition, we estimate that the U.S. could capture $5 billion to $12 billion in Japanese exports by that time, or 1 to 2 percent of Japan’s total current exports.
The Impact on U.S. Jobs
We estimate that the increase in U.S. exports and in the domestic production of goods that otherwise would have been imported will create between 600,000 and 1.2 million direct factory jobs. Another 1.9 million to 3.5 million jobs could be created indirectly in related services such as retail, transportation, and logistics. (See Exhibit 4.) We base these estimates on average output per worker and the multiplier effect in each industry category. In the transportation equipment sector, for example, every $140,000 in additional output on average creates one new job. A boost in U.S. production of $3 billion to $9 billion, therefore, would create 20,000 to 65,000 factory jobs. Each transportation-equipment production job, in turn, creates 3.6 jobs indirectly in other areas of the economy. That translates into an overall job increase of 110,000 to 290,000 in the U.S. transportation-equipment industry as a result of increased exports and reshored production.
If our projection of 2.5 to 5 million new U.S. jobs is accurate, the U.S. unemployment rate could drop by 2 to 3 percentage points. That would push the U.S. rate toward the “frictional” level, meaning the unemployment that normally occurs in an economy as workers change jobs.
Where the Gains Will Come
The gains in U.S. exports are likely to be felt across a wide range of industries. The U.S. is particularly well positioned compared with the five developed economies to increase exports in seven industrial categories: transportation equipment, chemicals, petroleum and coal products, computer and electronic products, machinery, electrical equipment, and primary metals. (See Exhibit 5.) These seven groups of industries accounted for roughly 75 percent ($12.6 trillion) of total global exports in 2011. Let’s look at three of them a little more closely.
Chemicals
The low cost of natural gas in the U.S. will become a particularly significant factor in the production of chemicals, where natural gas is often an important feedstock. Production costs in Germany, a leading chemical exporter, are projected to be 29 percent higher than in the U.S. in 2015. Chemical production costs are projected to be 17 percent higher in the U.K., 27 percent higher in Italy and Japan, and 28 percent higher in France.
A breakdown of the cost structures in each country shows why. Although the cost of German labor will be more than 50 percent higher, for example, the biggest impact will be from differences in natural gas prices, which will be more than three and a half times higher in Germany than in the U.S. Put another way, while natural gas will account for 8 percent of the total production cost of U.S.-made chemicals, it will account for 29 percent of costs in Germany. In the case of Japan, natural gas costs in chemical manufacturing will be nearly four times higher than in the U.S. in 2015. A further consideration is electricity rates, since chemical production is power intensive. We estimate that lower electricity rates will give the U.S. an additional cost advantage, ranging from 1 percentage point over the U.K., France, and Germany to 4 percentage points over Italy.
The U.S. will have a significant cost advantage over China in chemical production in 2015 as well. We project that costs in China’s Yangtze River Delta region will be 16 percent higher, with natural gas prices more than offsetting any advantage that China will have in labor costs.
We project that by 2015, the U.S. will gain $7 billion to $12 billion in chemical exports from Western Europe and Japan.
Machinery
This broad category includes everything from construction and industrial machinery to engines and air conditioners. The U.S. will have a manufacturing cost advantage in machinery of around 7 percent over Japan, where machinery is a $143 billion export industry. Machinery production costs will be around 14 percen
t high
er in Germany, which exported $216 billion in machinery in 2011, 14 percent higher in France, and 15 percent higher in Italy. Labor, a major cost in machinery manufacturing, is the big differentiator.
Projected total costs for machinery production will be around 8 percent lower in China in 2015. But when other costs are considered, it will likely be more cost-effective to produce much of the machinery that is sold in the U.S. in the U.S.
We project that by 2015, the U.S. will gain $3 billion to $12 billion in machinery exports from Western Europe and Japan.
The Key Messages for Manufacturers
Such core U.S. cost advantages as cheap energy and labor adjusted for productivity are likely to persist for at least the next five to ten years. As a result, the steady emergence of the U.S. as one of the lowest-cost countries of the developed world is a trend that is likely to have major implications for manufacturers around the world in a wide range of product categories across a wide range of industries. In the near term, the new math of manufacturing requires that many companies reassess their global production strategy.
We have long advised companies to maintain a diversified global manufacturing footprint in order to have the flexibility to respond to unanticipated changes and to expand or reduce production quickly in response to the competitive needs of specific markets. This advice continues to hold true. We also advise companies to carefully consider the total cost of ownership over the lifetime of the investment when deciding where to build new production capacity.
The shifting cost dynamics, however, suggest that more companies should consider the U.S. as a manufacturing option for global markets. A number of leading manufacturers based in Europe and Asia have already begun to use the U.S. as a major export platform or have announced plans to do so. Others are relocating offshore production to the U.S. of goods to be consumed in North America. We believe that these companies are the early movers in what is likely to become a more widespread trend by 2020.
Companies that fail to take into account these cost shifts when making long-term investments could find themselves at a competitive disadvantage. Improving U.S. cost-competitiveness compared with developed economies, combined with rising costs in such offshore-manufacturing havens as China, represent what we believe is a paradigm shift that could usher in an American manufacturing renaissance.
|
After the collapse of the Rana Plaza factory in Bangladesh in April killed 1,129 workers, the world’s biggest retailers agreed to tighten inspection standards and upgrade safety measures. | Andrew Biraj/Reuters
Garment workers and activists have demanded compensation for the survivors. | A.M. Ahad/Associated Press
SGS used an audit form prepared by a factory certification group when it inspected the Rosita Knitwear factory in Bangladesh in April 2011.
Workers in Sialkot, Pakistan, packing soccer balls before they are sold. Some companies were shaken to learn that children, ages 5 to 14, toiled up to 11 hours a day making soccer balls for them there. | Mian Khursheed/Reuters
Zaichun Ye, standing, of the monitoring group Verité, touring a textile factory in China. | Photo Credit: Jonathan Browning for The New York Times
|
Article reposted from The New York Times: But unknown to the inspectors, none of the playful items, including reindeer suits and Mrs. Claus dresses for dogs, that were supplied to Walmart had been manufactured at the factory. Instead, Chinese workers sewed the goods — which had been ordered by the Quaker Pet Group, a company based in New Jersey — at a rogue factory that had not gone through the certification process set by Walmart for labor, worker safety or quality, according to documents and interviews with officials involved. To receive approval for shipment to Walmart, a Quaker subcontractor just moved the items over to the approved factory, where they were presented to inspectors as though they had been stitched together there and never left the premises. Soon after the merchandise reached Walmart stores, it began falling apart. Fifteen hundred miles to the west, the Rosita Knitwear factory in northwestern Bangladesh — which made sweaters for companies across Europe — passed an inspection audit with high grades. A team of four monitors gave the factory hundreds of approving check marks. In all 12 major categories, including working hours, compensation, management practices and health and safety, the factory received the top grade of “good.” “Working Conditions — No complaints from the workers,” the auditors wrote. In February 2012, 10 months after that inspection, Rosita’s workers rampaged through the factory, vandalizing its machinery and accusing management of reneging on promised raises, bonuses and overtime pay. Some claimed that they had been sexually harassed or beaten by guards. Not a hint of those grievances was reported in the audit. As Western companies overwhelmingly turn to low-wage countries far away from corporate headquarters to produce cheap apparel, electronics and other goods, factory inspections have become a vital link in the supply chain of overseas production. An extensive examination by The New York Times reveals how the inspection system intended to protect workers and ensure manufacturing quality is riddled with flaws. The inspections are often so superficial that they omit the most fundamental workplace safeguards like fire escapes. And even when inspectors are tough, factory managers find ways to trick them and hide serious violations, like child labor or locked exit doors. Dangerous conditions cited in the audits frequently take months to correct, often with little enforcement or follow-through to guarantee compliance. Dara O’Rourke, a global supply chain expert at the University of California, Berkeley, said little had improved in 20 years of factory monitoring, especially with increased use of the cheaper “check the box” inspections at thousands of factories. “The auditors are put under greater pressure on speed, and they’re not able to keep up with what’s really going on in the apparel industry,” he said. “We see factories and brands passing audits but failing the factories’ workers.” Still, major companies including Walmart, Apple, Gap and Nike turn to monitoring not just to check that production is on time and of adequate quality, but also to project a corporate image that aims to assure consumers that they do not use Dickensian sweatshops. Moreover, Western companies now depend on inspectors to uncover hazardous work conditions, like faulty electrical wiring or blocked stairways, that have exposed some corporations to charges of irresponsibility and exploitation after factory disasters that killed hundreds of workers. The Rana Plaza factory collapse in Bangladesh, which killed 1,129 workers in April, intensified international scrutiny on factory monitoring, and pressured the world’s biggest retailers to sign on to agreements to tighten inspection standards and upgrade safety measures. While many groups consider the accords a significant advance, some longtime auditors and labor groups voice skepticism that inspection systems alone can ensure a safe workplace. After all, they say, the number of audits at Bangladesh factories has steadily increased as the country has become one of the world’s largest garment exporters, and still 1,800 workers there have died in workplace disasters in the last 10 years. “We’ve been auditing factories in Bangladesh for 20 years, and I wonder: ‘Why aren’t these things changing? Why aren’t things getting better?’ ” said Rachelle Jackson, the director of sustainability and innovation at Arche Advisors, a monitoring group based in California. Even with American and European companies appointing executives this summer to put in place a stricter regimen of inspections and safeguards under the new agreements, these efforts are limited to Bangladesh. Other leading garment-producing nations, like China, Honduras, Indonesia, Pakistan and Vietnam, are not getting such stepped-up attention or expanded inspections. Thousands of factories in those countries will no doubt continue to be reviewed through the perfunctory “check the box” audits. |
The inspections carry enormous weight with factory owners, who stand to win or lose millions of dollars in orders depending on their ratings. With stakes so high, factory managers have been known to try to trick or cheat the auditors. Bribery offers are not unheard-of. Often notified beforehand about an inspector’s visit, factory managers will unlock fire exit doors, unblock cluttered stairwells or tell underage child laborers not to show up at work that week.
Unauthorized subcontracting, or farming work out, to an unapproved factory (as was the case for the Quaker Pet Group order in China), is “very, very common,” according to Gary Peck, founder and managing director of the S Group, a design and sourcing company based in Portland, Ore.
Though almost all retailers prohibit the practice in their contracts, suppliers still do it to save money, speed production and meet high-volume orders.
And even inspections conducted at authorized factories can be deeply flawed. When NTD Apparel, a contractor for Walmart that is based in Montreal, hired a firm to inspect the Tazreen factory in Bangladesh before 112 workers died in a fire in November, the monitors’ questionnaire asked whether the factory had the proper number of fire extinguishers and smoke detectors on each floor. But it did not call for checking whether the factory had fire escapes or enclosed, fireproof stairways, which safety experts say could have saved lives.
“If it’s a check-the-box inspection, you better have the right boxes to look at,” said Daniel Viederman, chief executive of Verité, a nonprofit monitoring group.
Sajeev Jesudas, president of UL Verification Services, which conducted the Tazreen audit, said inspecting for fire escapes and fireproof stairways was “the responsibility of the local building inspectors.” Bangladesh has been faulted for having far too few officials to inspect factories.
Greg Gardner, the chief executive of Arche Advisors, said Western retailers and brands often seek different levels of audits. Some, like Levi’s and Patagonia, want rigorous — and costly — audits, while others prefer limited, inexpensive audits that will not jeopardize relationships with favored suppliers.
Audits can be very brief. A single inspector might visit a 1,000-employee factory for six to eight hours to review all types of manufacturing issues, like wages, child labor or toxic chemicals. Some auditors receive only five days of training, whereas the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration requires three years of training and experience assisting inspectors before employees can lead an inspection of a sizable factory in the United States.
In the Rosita case, after the workers went on their rampage, the Western companies that bought the factory’s knitwear grew alarmed. So Rosita’s owner, South Ocean, a conglomerate based in Hong Kong, commissioned a new inspection.
That inspection, conducted by Verité, which is based in Massachusetts, was a scathing broadside. Verité’s monitors found “ongoing physical abuse” and “verbal and psychological harassment,” with managers compelling workers who arrived late to stand for “many hours without rest.”
Verité’s three-day inspection found errors in calculating wages, chemical containers labeled only in English and unreasonably high production quotas for which workers were disciplined or fired for not meeting. The inspectors noted that workers “often face harsh treatment,” including jeering from managers if they requested sick leave or annual leave. The monitors also found that managers had fired employees for missing work because of a death in the family and that security guards had beaten workers involved in union and protest activities.
Mr. Viederman of Verité said the earlier inspection, performed by a major monitoring firm, SGS, demonstrated the shortcomings of checklist audits. The SGS inspection involved a one-day visit, largely seeking yes-no answers, probably for a modest fee.
He noted that SGS had interviewed employees only inside the factory, where workers were often unlikely to speak candidly, and not outside — for instance, at bus stops or at home, where workers might open up.
Charles Kernaghan, executive director of the Institute for Global Labor and Human Rights, was shocked when he read the SGS inspection report for Rosita. “The auditors were saying everything was in perfect order,” he said. “It shows how ineffective these monitoring organizations can be.”
Effie Marinos, sustainability manager at SGS, defended her company’s findings. She said SGS had followed the inspection protocol developed by the Business Social Compliance Initiative, a factory certification group for European businesses.
Ms. Marinos said the protocol for Rosita did not require interviewing workers outside the factory, a practice that she cautioned could undermine a relationship between a Western company and its suppliers.
“You don’t want to start the whole approach with a lack of trust, that they are trying to fool you, that they are behaving unethically,” she said. “It can sour an entire relationship.”
Bypassing Inspection Rules
The Walmart purchase orders read “Ethical Standards Required.”
In mid-2011, the Quaker Pet Group, whose biggest customer was Walmart, began looking for cheaper factories where its trendy dog clothes could be made, according to a former Quaker employee who requested anonymity for fear of reprisal from Quaker. The company has also sold its goods to Petco, PetSmart and smaller retailers.
Quaker settled on a plant called Jiutai Bag and Gift Factory in Dongguan, Guangdong. After visiting the site, Quaker’s president, Neil Werde, sent a note to a Jiutai representative in June 2011. “I was pleased with your factory,” Mr. Werde wrote, according to an e-mail shared by the former employee. “Good luck on the Walmart inspection.”
That inspection did not occur. Quaker officials became concerned that Jiutai would not be able to pass an inspection, the former employee said.
But there was a workaround. While Jiutai would make the garments, Quaker would fill out order forms to say that the items had been made by Ease Clever Plastic Manufactory, then an approved Walmart supplier. Ease Clever is an established manufacturer that ships products to Target and other large companies, according to the global trade database Panjiva. Jiutai, by contrast, had only one recent listing in the database, for a small shipment to Puerto Rico in 2011.
The stickiest issue was how to get the clothing made by Jiutai past Walmart inspectors. An inspection at Ease Clever was scheduled for September 2011, when the Walmart representatives would check that the dog outfits were being manufactured there, the former employee said.
Jiutai simply took the clothes to Ease Clever, according to the former employee. Those moves were outlined in a later e-mail from a Jiutai representative to Mr. Werde.
“The Walmart inspectors showed up and said, ‘Oh, they are being made here.’ It’s not as challenging as you would think,” the
former employee said. “You have your finished-goods area and just show them the cartons being packed out.”
In an e-mail to Mr. Werde, the Jiutai representative, identified as Mr. Hu, detailed how the setup had worked as he pushed Quaker for payment.
In July, Mr. Hu wrote, a company based in Hong Kong called KYCE, apparently acting as a liaison, helped arrange an order for the Christmas dog clothes. “JiuTai only make the clothes,” Mr. Hu wrote.
In September, “we hang the clothes” in display cases and “send to Ease Clever warehouse for Walmart during inspection,” Mr. Hu added, including photographs of the costumes. After the inspection, the clothes went back to Jiutai, and Jiutai, after making final adjustments, packed and delivered the clothes to the shipping terminal, Mr. Hu wrote. Mr. Hu and KYCE representatives did not respond to multiple e-mails seeking comment.
Throughout September, according to Walmart purchase orders, Quaker shipped $2.1 million worth of pet outfits from Yantian, China, to various American ports. The purchase orders list Mrs. Claus dresses, Santa suits and reindeer suits — the exact outfits Mr. Hu of Jiutai said he had made at his factory and then photographed. But the purchase orders list Ease Clever as the supplier, not Jiutai.
Contacted by telephone last month about the inspection and shipment, Jay Xie, a sales manager for Ease Clever, said the company had allowed the use of its Walmart certification. “His factory had not yet been audited — he used my factory because it was already audited,” Mr. Xie said of the Jiutai factory manager. Mr. Xie said this had happened only once, as a friendly act to help a fellow manufacturer.
The shipment, though, was late, according to the former employee and Mr. Hu’s e-mail. And soon after Walmart started selling these items, Quaker began receiving complaints, according to the former employee. When Walmart conducted a quality test on the Mrs. Claus dress, it found holes, and the outfit failed the test. Walmart executives then summoned Quaker employees to its sourcing office in Shanghai for an explanation, but Quaker did not disclose the subcontracting to Walmart at that time, the former employee said.
In March 2013, Walmart received a tip, via its global ethics hot line, about the unauthorized subcontracting and looked into it.
Kevin Gardner, a spokesman for the company, confirmed that subcontracting in this case occurred in 2011, and that Walmart officials “met with the supplier after the investigation to go through the findings and reinforce what our expectations are pursuant to subcontracting.”
Even though Walmart was alerted to the case nearly two years after the products were made and only after a hot line tip, the retailer pointed to the episode as an example of how its investigation and compliance system was working, not faltering.
“We investigated. We talked with the supplier. We think this does show the processes were in place,” Mr. Gardner said.
In January of this year, Walmart established a “zero tolerance” policy, saying it would drop suppliers who used subcontractors without the company’s approval. Walmart adopted the policy after garments headed to the company were found in the fire debris at Tazreen, an unauthorized factory.
Quaker and Mr. Werde declined to comment. The pet specialty company remains a Walmart supplier, Mr. Gardner said.
Cat-and-Mouse Games
The question-and-answer sheet that the factory’s managers distributed to all their employees was explicit: if an inspector ever asked, “Are there injury records?” they were to answer, “Have not heard of any work-related injuries.”
And if an inspector asked, “Any corporal punishment in the factory?” the employees were to reply, “No.” If monitors inquired about underage workers at the plant, employees were coached to respond, “Employment for those less than 16 years old is prohibited.”
This sheet, prepared by managers at a Chinese factory and obtained by The Times, had one purpose: to trick inspectors.
Supply chain experts and monitors say that far too often, factory managers play cat-and-mouse games with inspectors because they are desperate to avoid a failing grade and the loss of a lucrative stream of orders.
The experts provided real-life examples. To avoid appearing illegally overcrowded, one factory moved many machines into trucks parked outside during an inspection, a monitor said. Whenever inspectors showed up at certain plants in China, the loudspeakers began playing a certain song to signal that underage workers should run out the back door, according to several monitors. During inspections in India, some factories displayed elaborate charts detailing health and safety procedures that, like stage props, were transferred from one factory to another, another monitor said.
For monitoring companies with major retailing clients, the auditing regimen can be nonstop. The territory itself is daunting — 5,000 factories produce garments in Bangladesh alone. A retailer that uses 1,000 factories worldwide might want to pay no more than $1,000 an inspection — that could mean a one-day, check-the-box audit — instead of $5,000 for thorough, five-day inspections. That would cost $1 million instead of $5 million.
“You have this intense price pressure downward on these inspection firms, turning them into a commodity business,” said Mr. O’Rourke of the University of California, Berkeley.
Auret van Heerden, president and chief executive of the Fair Labor Association, a nonprofit group that Apple uses to monitor its Foxconn factories in China, said many inspectors were too rushed. “Many are doing a factory a day, and many auditors, more than one factory a day,” he said. “They’re on a plane and going to a new city the next day. They don’t have much time to think about it or dwell on it.”
Despite some improvements, many supply chain experts say monitoring has inherent shortcomings. Not long ago, Nike and other sporting goods companies were shaken by revelations that children, ages 5 to 14, toiled up to 11 hours a day making soccer balls for them in Sialkot, Pakistan.
A study found that half of Pakistan’s soccer ball workers were making less than the minimum wage, with many stitching the balls’ panels together at home, making it hard for factory monitors to unearth such violations.
Nike responded by requiring its main contractor there, Silver Star, to consolidate production in one big factory. Knowing how skilled many contractors have become at gaming the monitoring system, Nike took an unusual step and ordered Silver Star to set up a system of elected worker representatives who would be charged with speaking up about safety problems, wage violations or other issues.
“We’ve learned that monitoring alone isn’t enough,” said Greg Rossiter, Nike’s chief spokesman.
Mr. van Heerden said, “You can never visit facilities often enough to make sure they stay compliant — you’ll never have enough inspectors to do that. What really keeps factories compliant is when workers have a voice and they can speak out when something isn’t right.”
Still, after a string of fatal disasters and repeated failures in uncovering serious violations, many experts doubt that even a highly organized and supervised inspection industry can improve factory conditions in country after country. Heather White, a research fellow at Harvard and a longtime factory auditor, said, “It starts as a dream, then it becomes an organization, and it finally ends up as a racket.”
Good news: Americans are making things again, from cars to watches to socks. What’s behind the manufacturing upswing—and what it means for American labor.
Last week, Walmart expanded on the $50 billion Buy American pledge it made last January with a full-fledged Made-in-America summit.
Parade Magazine