Company Profile: Puma AG
Headquarters: Herzogenaurach
Country: Germany
Founded in: 1948
Total points of sales in Europe:
116 Concept Stores world wide + 1000s of retail shops.
Owned by: Shareholders
Name of CEO: Jochen Zeitz
Product description:
Sportshoes and sportswear, fashion.
Brands: Puma, Tretorn, Hussein Chalayan
Producer countries: 40
General remarks: n.a.
PUMA AG
Puma-Way 1
91074 Herzogenaurach
sustain(at)puma.com
Comments from CCC
Although Puma seems to be open to improving its CSR practices, a joint pilot project between the CCC Germany and Puma in 2005-06 revealed a very different reality: the pilot project failed because Puma was not ready to provide the financial resources needed (approximately US$ 10 000) for a six-months extension of the project, in clear violation of the agreement concluded between the CCC and Puma. The CCC Germany believes that Puma agreed to take part in the pilot project in order to improve its image prior to and during the 2006 World Cup, which was being held in Germany. After the championships, the company lost interest in spending more money on this innovative project.
Although the company is number three in the global sporting goods market, the number of staff working on CSR issues is low : the 13 people working in Puma’s global CSR team seem to be permanently overloaded. The influence of PPI, which bought over 64% of Puma’s shares, on Puma’s CRS policy will have to be closely monitored.
The following evaluation of the company’s performance in terms of transparency, code implementation and monitoring of labour standards is based on research conducted by the CCC - Germany in 2008.
Transparency
Since 2003, Puma has been organising an annual Stakeholder Dialogue event called Talks at Banz. The CCC is always invited. In 2007, however, the CCC refused to participate due to Puma’s breach of the pilot project agreement it had entered into with the CCC. The salary of Puma's CEO is known: 12,3 Million (2006)* The company has been publicly disclosing a list of suppliers since 2005, with approximately 350 factories listed world-wide. Puma is sourcing via World Cat Int., a sourcing subsidiary. Every one or two years Puma publishes a social and environmental report. In 2005-06, this became the company’s sustainability report. Puma is a member of Jo-In and of the Fair Labor Association (FLA). The FLA publishes the results of verification in its tracking charts. The latest PUMA Sustainability Report, which covers the PUMA compliance program S.A.F.E., was independently verified by the German Technical Assurance Provider TÜV Rheinland.
Formal commitment on labour standards
Puma has its own code of conduct. As a member of the FLA, Puma also has to comply with the FLA’s code of conduct. The Puma code of conduct does not refer to ILO-conventions. PUMA is also a member of the UN Global Compact and, as such, a signatory to the ten principles of the UN Global Compact. In its code of conduct, the ILO Core Conventions are accepted but not specifically referred to. In theory, PUMA accepts responsibility for workers at every supplier and sub-contractor. In reality, Puma staff say that in factories where smaller orders are placed, the company does not have much influence over labour standards. The PUMA Code of Conduct is in line with the ILO Convention C1 (on hours of work) and C14 (for a weekly rest day) while the FLA (which conducts external verification at Puma suppliers) does not accept the concept of a Living Wage and does not explicitly refer to the ILO convention on working hours. The code contains provisions for a safe workplace The code states that workers must be issued with regular employment contracts.
Code implementation and purchasing practices
Puma has its own system of internal monitoring and conducts external verification (through the FLA). Its code of conduct is translated into the languages of producer countries.
Monitoring and Verification
Puma is a member of the FLA and Jo-In.
Violations of labour rights and public conflicts
Puma was a buyer in the Hermosa case in El Salvador (on-going since 2006). This case involves the dismissal of union members, black listing, outstanding wages and unpaid social security payments. Puma responded that it had only a small order with Hermosa although workers reported bigger orders over a longer period than the company suggests. Puma refused to contribute to an emergency fund. Other FLA members did contribute.
Recent developments
n.a.