All of the brands included in this report with the exception of Lotto have adopted codes of conduct. The codes instituted by Reebok Outlet, Kappa, Asics and reebok outletare among the better and include part of the standards as outlined in the CCC and ICFTU model codes, although they do fail to make reference to the ILO and are still weak particularly concerning hours and wages. The codes adopted by Fila and New Balance include weaker standards and do not emphasize the freedom of association. The weakest code is the one adopted by Mizuno in that it functions more as internal guide and does not monitor the conduct of Mizuno’s suppliers.
This code contains very insubstantial standards and does not do much more than confirm "that profits can be attained by following a fundamental standard of ethics". In many cases, the workplace conditions described above are in direct contradiction with the standards adopted in their own codes. Reebok Outlet gives an overview. Codes of conduct, even codes of conduct that contain strong although implicit reference to the ILO conventions. Remain weak instruments for improving workplace conditions as long as they lack compliance programmes to ensure that standards are implemented and verified.
Most of the companies in this Reebok Outlet report have been unable to clarify precisely how they intend to implement and verify their codes at the factories they source from. Puma is the only company among the “B” brands included in this report that publishes a social report. The workers in the effected factories often have no idea that these codes even exist or they are not trained in how to properly utilise them. For instance, workers in sportswear factories in Turkey
