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

Cette page n’est pas disponible en Français et est affichée en English

Le contenu est également disponible dans les langues suivantes: English, Deutsch

Procès

6 Avr 2010

Auteur:
Business & Human Rights Resource Centre

Lidl lawsuit (re working conditions in Bangladesh)

Statut : CLOSED

Date de dépôt de la plainte
6 Avr 2010
Féminin
Consommateur
Lieu de dépôt de la plainte: Allemagne
Lieu de l'incident: Bangladesh
Type de litige: Transnational

Entreprises

Lidl Allemagne Commerce de détail, Supermarchés et épiceries

Sources

Für die deutsche Beschreibung des Falles, klicken Sie hier.

On 6 April 2010, the Hamburg Consumer Protection Agency, supported by the European Centre for Constitutional and Human Rights (ECCHR) and the Clean Clothes Campaign (CCC), filed a lawsuit in Heilbronn district court against the German discount retailer Lidl.  The complaint followed a Lidl advertising campaign which claimed that the company advocated for fair working conditions and contracted its non-food orders only from selected suppliers.  In this campaign, Lidl also claimed that it opposed child labour as well as human and labour rights violations in its supply chain.

Relying on research compiled by ECCHR and CCC, the Consumer Protection Agency alleged that the working conditions in Bangladeshi textile plants in Lidl’s supply chain did not comply with labour standards as set out by the International Labour Organization (ILO) and theBusiness Social Compliance Initiative (BSCI) code of conduct.  Furthermore, it alleged that the companies in Lidl’s supply chain violated labour laws, including the rights to freedom of association and collective bargaining and freedom from sex discrimination.  The Agency claimed that the Bangladeshi employees worked excessive overtime (more than 12 hours per week) with no overtime premium, were not entitled to a holiday after 6 consecutive working days and were subjected to harassment and to payroll deductions as a punitive measure.  Accordingly, the suit demanded that Lidl stop deceiving customers about fair working conditions in its supply-chain.

On 14 April 2010, Lidl agreed to withdraw the public claims and advertisements that its goods were being produced under fair and decent working conditions.  A consent decree was filed with the court to memorialise this agreement.  Additionally, Lidl is no longer permitted to refer to its membership in the BSCI in its advertising materials.