Making for distant buyers

Jalandhar’s football industry shows why making an exported product and controlling its brand are different roles. Peter Lund-Thomsen and Khalid Nadvi’s 2009 UNIDO study followed the relationships connecting producers, foreign buyers and local institutions. Their 2007–08 research distinguished Jalandhar’s substantial promotional-ball business from the premium branded chains prominent in Sialkot. Those were different market connections, with consequences for production organisation and scrutiny of labour conditions. The comparison concerned selected firms and interviews, not a current ranking of the cities. It also examined home-based stitching, placing households within the export economy rather than treating the factory gate as the edge of production. Their fieldwork included household interviews in nearby Talhan and Tajpur. Global trade here involved several linked organisations and work settings, even when a finished ball carried one buyer’s name.[1]

Making dispersed work visible

The Sports Goods Foundation of India’s own monitoring account reveals the administrative work behind that chain. It describes members providing contractor and stitcher information, locations receiving identifying numbers, and reports being checked through site visits. Its procedure links codes on balls with reporting back to member companies. Such arrangements attempted to connect a dispersed production network with identifiable locations and responsibilities. The page describes a monitoring system; its existence alone does not demonstrate complete coverage or establish the conditions at every workplace.[3]

Trade and collective institutions

SGFI’s memorandum connects monitoring with education and social protection for children involved in ball stitching. Its stated purposes show that the industry’s response extended beyond the sale of goods into relationships with stitching households. These published objectives are evidence of an institutional programme, while the success of particular interventions requires separate evaluation. The football case consequently reveals a trade in which products, labour organisation and collective responsibilities were connected.[2]

Sources & notes

Source records include access dates and, where known, limits on what was examined. Checks used AI assistance; independent human or specialist review has not been completed.

  1. Peter Lund-Thomsen and Khalid Nadvi; UNIDO Technical Paper 17. Global Value Chains, Local Clusters and Corporate Social Responsibility: A Comparative Assessment of the Sports Goods Clusters in Sialkot, Pakistan and Jalandhar, India ↗original scholarly field research · Source date: 2009 · Locator: Actual UNIDO title/imprint PDF 2–5; printed pp. 3–5/PDF 15–17 methodology; pp. 31–32/PDF 43–44 comparative buyers/production; selected pp. 67–68/PDF 79–80 production organisation. Accessed 2026-11-02.Selected passages actually inspected. The actual imprint is UNIDO, not UNDP. Manchester's actual 2010 journal record explicitly says Clusters, Chains and Compliance draws on the commissioned study; all versions/related incorporated project analysis share the proposed pool. Limits: Not a current export census or a representative worker-impact evaluation. Date market distinctions explicitly; exclude 2005 totals and timeless quality ranking. Use original comparative findings here. SGFI procedural material reproduced/reported elsewhere in the study stays charged to the underlying SGFI family.Return to Making for distant buyers, paragraph 1 ↑
  2. Sports Goods Foundation of India. Memorandum of Association: main objects ↗primary institutional report or description · Source date: publication date not established · Locator: Actual public body, main objects 1–6 (web-reader lines 75–87). Accessed 2026-11-02.The selected institutional programme and monitoring descriptions were inspected. They state the organisation’s objectives and reported procedures; they do not independently measure achievement or establish current law. Personal founding-member details and undated totals were excluded.Return to Trade and collective institutions, paragraph 1 ↑
  3. Sports Goods Foundation of India. Monitoring ↗primary institutional report or description · Source date: publication date not established · Locator: Actual public body: household-location database and Modus Operandi steps 1–7 (web-reader lines 79–94). Accessed 2026-11-02.Selected passages actually inspected. Limits: Attribute this to the undated institutional description. Do not infer universal coverage, independent verification, eradication of child labour or present compliance. No household identifiers or undated monitoring totals are needed.Return to Making dispersed work visible, paragraph 1 ↑
Help improve this entry. Suggest a correction with a source.
Record PH-JOU-0047 · English edition · human review not performed