Duke Severs Links to 28 Licensed Companies

Duke 's licensing agent sent letters to 28 companies Monday canceling their rights to manufacture and market clothing and other products with Duke trademarks because they failed to disclose the locations of factories making the products, or provided incomplete information.

The university has a total of 409 companies that produce jackets, sweatshirts, caps, mugs, notebooks and a wide variety of other merchandise bearing Duke logos and 93 percent of the licensees have complied with factory disclosure requirements adopted last year as part of a code of conduct governing the manufacture of Duke-licensed products.

Aimed at eliminating sweatshop conditions in factories used by companies licensing the university's trademarks, the code set minimum age, wage and benefit limits; prohibited harassment, abuse and forced labor; required healthy and safe working conditions; recognized employees' collective bargaining rights; and committed licensees to allow independent external monitoring.

After a sit-in by students in January 1999, Duke officials and Duke Students Against Sweatshops signed an agreement committing the university to seek disclosure of all licensees' factory locations by January of this year. Duke's agent then renegotiated contracts with 409 licensees to require factory disclosure. On March 1, 1999, each licensee was informed that detailed factory location information had to be submitted to the Collegiate Licensing Co. by Jan. 1, and reminder notices were sent Nov. 30, 1999. CLC sent out follow-up letters Dec. 29 and Jan. 13 informing all licensees who had yet to disclose factory locations that they would be considered in breach of their contracts if they failed to respond by Jan. 31.

While nearly 80 percent of those firms beat the deadline, CLC sent notice of potential contract terminations on Feb.14 to those remaining companies that failed to comply by Monday.

Jim Wilkerson, head of the operations of Duke's stores and licensing, said the 28 companies that failed to disclose factory locations produced about 8 percent of Duke's annual licensing royalty revenue.

"Duke is committed to full disclosure as a way to assure that products bearing a Duke trademark are not produced under abusive or unfair labor conditions," he said. "We gave our licensees abundant time to comply with our request to provide addresses for their manufacturing facilities and we're pleased that the overwhelming majority did. Public disclosure of factory locations is a key step in opening the doors of the factories to scrutiny by the public and others."

Sara Jewett, a leader of Duke Students Against Sweatshops, said that by holding licensees accountable to their contracts, "Duke University has moved the anti-sweatshop movement forward. Duke has sent a message to licensees that it will honor the agreement made with students and will no longer tolerate contractual violations. Though later than expected, I applaud the actions of our administration, because it sets a precedent for the nation. Duke students now have full disclosure lists of all factories that produce Duke goods.

"This victory for disclosure, however, is only the first step in dismantling the sweatshop system," she told Dialogue. "Now that we have the list we must seek out the best methods to ensure that workers rights are being met and that Duke's Code of Conduct is being honored. SAS will be focusing particular

attention on the Workers Rights Consortium, a grass-roots centered response network, and critiquing the Fair Labor Association (FLA), in which Duke is currently a member."

The FLA has more than 70 university and college affiliates. It is governed by a board that includes representatives from four non-governmental organizations, four companies, one university (Princeton) and a chairman, former White House counsel Charles Ruff. Two additional organizations and company representatives will be added soon. The non-governmental organizations now on the board are the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights, International Labor Rights Fund, National Consumers League and the Center for International Human Rights at Yale.

Wilkerson said the FLA is expected to begin the factory inspection process this summer. He said the FLA will certify companies as having subjected themselves to the FLA monitoring process. Those certifications will be issued after accredited independent monitors have inspected 30 percent of company factories that have the highest "risk factors" such as size of factory and a pattern or likelihood of non-compliance. Public reports of the findings will be issued annually. Once certified, a company must have 5 percent to 15 percent of its factories monitored annually. FLA's monitoring principles call for unannounced as well as announced inspections.

The letter sent by CLC on behalf of Duke Monday said, in part:

"Since you have not complied with the factory disclosure requirement, CLC must advise you that your license to use the marks of Duke University is hereby terminated. Thus, your company no longer has the right to manufacture, advertise, distribute, or sell products bearing the indicia of Duke University. All merchandise incorporating the marks of this institution must be forwarded to CLC for disposal."