abusesaffiliationarrow-downarrow-leftarrow-rightarrow-upattack-typeburgerchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-upClock iconclosedeletedevelopment-povertydiscriminationdollardownloademailenvironmentexternal-linkfacebookfiltergenderglobegroupshealthC4067174-3DD9-4B9E-AD64-284FDAAE6338@1xinformation-outlineinformationinstagraminvestment-trade-globalisationissueslabourlanguagesShapeCombined Shapeline, chart, up, arrow, graphLinkedInlocationmap-pinminusnewsorganisationotheroverviewpluspreviewArtboard 185profilerefreshIconnewssearchsecurityPathStock downStock steadyStock uptagticktooltiptwitteruniversalityweb
Company Response

16 Nov 2015


adidas response

Here are the salient facts, and the actions we have taken.

1. The plant level union involved in this dispute did not follow the legal requirements for a strike and workers were treated as having “resigned” when they failed to return to work within the time specified by the law. That was back in July 2012.

2. adidas Group was not sourcing product from PDB at the time of the strike, nor when the factory closed a year later. Throughout this period the factory was making exclusively for another major sporting goods brand.

3. However, because of our close relations with the affiliated trade union federation, we proactively reached out to the Indonesia government’s Manpower Department and asked them to mediate between the two parties at PDB. That proved unsuccessful…