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, graphlocationmap-pinminusnewsorganisationotheroverviewpluspreviewArtboard 185profilerefreshIconnewssearchsecurityPathStock downStock steadyStock uptagticktooltiptwitteruniversalityweb
Article

6 Dec 2013

Author:
Sherpa

Samsung in China: an attack on the fundamental rights of workers

See all tags

SAMSUNG France boasts of having adopted ethical commitments that are widely disseminated on the Internet, where it claims to be able to contribute to a «better world» by being a «socially responsible» company. The ethical standards of the company are affirmed without ambiguity and are incorporated by two Codes of Conduct, which are themselves strengthened by the Reports on Sustainable Development...China Labor Watch, a Chinese non-governmental organisation...carried out eleven field investigations at different factories manufacturing Samsung products by infiltrating some of its members. The reports on the investigations denounced...an attack on the fundamental rights of workers. Thanks to this evidence, the associations Sherpa, Peuples Solidaires and Indecosa-CGT submitted a complaint on 26 February 2013 to the public prosecutor's office of Bobigny against the company Samsung France, denouncing deceptive business practices...After a dismissal without further action of the complaint filed by Sherpa in February 2015, the association, in partnership with the Indecosa-CGT, summoned Samsung France and Samsung Electronics World to appear before the Court of Bobigny for deceptive marketing practices on December 17, 2015...Sherpa used the private prosecution procedure for the first time, giving direct access to the court, judging that it held sufficient evidence to dispense with an investigation.

Story Timeline