by Jennifer Hart Yim | May 17, 2017 | Blog, Current Events, Supply Chain
Legislation like the California Transparency in Supply Chains Act gives consumers tools to monitor companies who violate human trafficking and child labor standards.
This article is part of a series of articles written by MBA students and graduates from the University of New Hampshire Peter T. Paul College of Business and Economics.
The California Transparency in Supply Chains Act (hereinafter “California Transparency Act”) took effect in 2012. This state law applies to certain companies satisfying requirements as stipulated under the act. But if you are not doing business in California, does the law affect you?
The economy of California is big enough to be the 6th largest economy in the world, and her GDP is the largest in the U.S. Even though the California Transparency Act is state law, it seems inevitable that it will affect the U.S. economy in general.
Why Do We Need a Transparency Act?
Today, supply chain is a critical system in any business. The absence of one of its components could stop business production.
Such disruption can occur as a result of strikes or other work stoppages by laborers who have been trafficked or who are paid little or nothing for forced work. One good example is the Coalition of Immokalee Workers (CIW) representing tomato pickers in Florida. CIW has implemented a Fair Food Program, in which large retailers buying tomatoes pay a penny more per pound to fund better wages and to improve working conditions for tomato pickers. Since 2001, more than thirteen companies such as McDonald’s, Subway and Burger King have joined the program. But Wendy’s has not yet, causing the company to suffer criticism and boycotts from customers.
The need for such programs to improve working conditions is great, as tragedies such as Rana Plaza remind us. In 2013, the 8-story garment factory supplying to global brands collapsed in Bangladesh, killing 1,135 workers. Three months earlier, fire in another garment factory sewing clothes for Western companies killed seven workers, two of whom were just teenagers, ages 15 and 16.
Legally speaking, human trafficking and child labor are illegal in every country. 166 countries are parties to the Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Woman and Children (aka “the Palermo Protocol”). However, violations of these laws are commonplace.
Why? In most countries, using trafficked workers and child labor is punishable under criminal law. So when it occurs, who goes to a jail? Actually, no one goes to a jail. Just a fine is imposed on the company violating of law.
In addition to the demand for cheap labor and services, the lack of meaningful law enforcement makes these practices continue. Civil liability and monitoring by good citizens are the most effective ways to decrease human trafficking and child labor. The California Transparency Act will provide a systematic process to oversee companies and to impose civil liability on illegality.
The California Transparency Act
The California Transparency Act is the first state law in the U.S. specifically addressing slavery and human trafficking in supply chains.
It applies to any business with $100 million in gross worldwide revenues that is doing business in California, and requires any subject business to disclose its efforts to eliminate slavery and human trafficking from their direct supply chains. The disclosure must provide the information of retail sellers or manufacturers, including verification of product supply chains, audit of suppliers, certifying materials, maintaining internal accountability, and training.
Those violating this act will be subject to action brought by the Attorney General for injunctive relief. If you want to see how this system works, go to a company’s website that you think does business in California, such as Trader Joe’s.
Federal Supply Chain Transparency Act
Four years after the California Transparency Act was enacted, Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) introduced a federal transparency law, the Business Supply Chain Transparency on Trafficking and Slavery Act of 2014, but it was never finalized. She reintroduced the bill in 114th Congress, but it was referred to the committee and did not go forward.
However, the federal regulation required by president Obama’s executive order titled Strengthening Protections against Trafficking in Persons in Federal Contracts was published in 2015. New FAR (Federal Acquisition Regulation) prohibits several practices for contractors, subcontractors and their agents, including denying access to the employee’s identity or immigration documents, using misleading or fraudulent recruitment practices, etc.
Transparency Act in the E.U.
In 2014, the European Parliament enacted Directive 2014/95/EU, which requires that public interest entities with more than 500 employees report information regarding efforts they are making to manage social, environmental and governance-related issues. The disclosure includes a non-financial statement on policies, outcomes and risks relating to social matters, and respect for human rights. The non-financial statement must provide a description of the policies pursued by the organization, the outcome of those policies, the principal risks related to those matters linked to the organization’s operations, and non-financial key performance indicators.
No specific penalty for failure to comply is stipulated. However, the directive instructs member states to ensure adequate and effective means for the guarantee of disclosure on non-financial information. The directive entered into force in January 1, 2017. As of December 6, 2016, most member countries had taken legislative measures to abide by the directive.
One example is the U.K. Modern Slavery Act, enacted in 2015. Part 6 of the act, entitled Transparency in Supply Chains Disclosure, imposes certain disclosure requirements on businesses. The disclosure must include information about the organization’s structure, its business and its supply chains, its policies in relation to slavery and human trafficking, its due-diligence processes in relation to slavery and human trafficking, a risk of slavery and human trafficking and its steps to manage that risk, and training available to its staff. The duties imposed on commercial organizations by this act are enforceable by the Secretary of State bringing civil proceedings.
France also enacted legislation defining a duty of vigilance for parent companies and their subcontractors in 2016, according to a promulgated document in 2017. The law applies to companies operating in full or in part on French territory with at least 5,000 employees when the head office is located in France, or 10,000 employees when the head office is located abroad. The law provides that multinational firms carrying out all or part of their activity on French territory shall establish mechanisms to prevent human rights violations and environmental damages throughout their supply chains. If the company does not prepare a vigilance plan and fails to comply with the formal judicial notice, it may be sanctioned with fines up to €10 million. The amount of this fine may reach up to €30 million if failure to develop a plan leads to injuries that could have otherwise been prevented.
Conclusion
Many legislative measures have been introduced both domestically and internationally to maintain transparency in supply chain. Regardless of a number of efforts on supply chain transparency, one question is not yet clear: how these measures will affect the transparency of supply chain.
Someone might criticize that no powerful measure has been introduced allowing governments to control supply chains. However, I wonder why we think government has more power than people and communities to maintain supply chain transparency.
We consumers can nourish or contract business. Supply chain transparency law, including the California Transparency Act, will provide a tool for consumers to monitor companies and to take action when the laws are violated. That is why I am optimistic about future of the law.
About the Author
Soyoung Yook, J.S.D., Attorney at Law, New York, is an MBA candidate at the University of New Hampshire Peter T. Paul College of Business and Economics.
Related posts:
by Fronetics | Jul 7, 2016 | Blog, Strategy, Supply Chain
Locally sourced foods are popular with consumers. But for restaurants, the shorter supply chain is plagued by food safety concerns.
Shorter does not mean simpler when it comes the food supply chain. In fact, working with small local producers often introduces a whole new set of challenges, particularly in regards to food safety and preparation.
Take, for example, the chain restaurant Chipotle, which boasted a menu supported by locally sourced foods. Last year, the chain was linked to outbreaks of E. coli, norovirus, and salmonella. Today, shorter food supply chains are under new scrutiny because of safety concerns.
Professor John Quelch of Harvard Business School and T.H. Chan School of Public Health recently authored a case study on food supply chain challenges. He summarizes his findings in an interview with the Harvard Business Review, discussing the major obstacles to local sourcing, how to manage them, and the changing appearance of food supply chains as we move forward.
Here are some highlights:
When there are fewer intermediaries between supplier and restaurant, the supply chain is actually more complex and fragmented, and safety is harder to control.
Essentially restaurants must trust numerous individual suppliers rather than having a standard quality control procedure for a manageable number of specific food sources. McDonald’s, for instance, gets chicken for all its locations from a handful of controlled sources. A nationwide chain that is sourcing locally, on the other hand, will have as many suppliers as there are locations, in theory. This means they may not be able to monitor every one on site.
Sources that mass produce have sophistication and experience in food testing that small local growers lack.
When you source food locally, inspections are on an honor system with that producer. But, the producers may lack the knowledge to assure the highest level of safety. They may not have experience with USDA inspection procedures, and their internal inspection systems may not be as well developed as a company with global operations.
Establishments that want to source locally need to factor in costs of their own safety protocols.
Yes, they may need to charge more from the consumer to balance this, but the safety checks are a must. It does not need to be done in-house either. According to Quelch, a number of very competent, existing independent food testing companies can assure safety and quality. Remember also that consumers are often willing, and expect, to pay more for locally sourced foods, particularly if they are organic and fresh.
Supply chain transparency is a must.
Many larger supply chain companies already have tracking systems in place, but such transparency is lacking at the local level. If an incident of illness occurs from a food supply, the establishment needs to be able to determine what caused it and where it was sourced from. They should be able to hone in on the source as fast as possible, so the rest of their supply chain is left out of the equation and operations are not shut down.
The future will blend global and local suppliers.
A minority of consumers will still have a passion and demand for locally produced, farm-to-table food. But, many consumers will remain price-sensitive, looking for safe food at a reasonable price. So, consolidation will probably occur through partnerships and mergers of global and local suppliers. Large food processing companies may start using local sources to make branded products, which are sourced closer to the target consumer.
Related posts:
by Fronetics | Jan 19, 2015 | Blog, Supply Chain
The call for more transparent and more ethical supply chains
Events such as hurricane Sandy, the Fukushima nuclear disaster, the Bangladesh factory collapse, and the Ikea horse meat scandal, have positioned the spotlight on the supply chain and have consumers, regulators, and businesses calling for an increase in supply chain transparency.
The increased scrutiny of the supply chain is not a result of an increase in the number of events; rather it is a result of technology. The Internet of Things (IoT) is reducing the number of “black holes” within the supply chain and offering the capability of end-to end visibility – making the supply chain more transparent. The internet and social media is also increasing visibility and transparency. Tom Seal, head of research at Procurement Professionals, astutely points out that:
“The internet and social media leave almost no dark rocks for corporations to hide under.”
It is here that it is important to make the distinction between transparency and visibility. David Linich, Principal, Deloitte Consulting, does this well:
“Transparency goes beyond gaining visibility into the extended supply chain. It is the process by which a company takes action on the insights gained through greater visibility in order to manage risks more effectively.”
Environmental and ethical practices within the supply are areas where there is often a “disconnect between intentions and actions.” Seal:
“It’s far simpler to change branding and marketing – and present a company as environmentally and ethically aware – than it is to reconfigure or rebuild an entire global supply chain.”
That being said, companies who do use the insights gained through greater visibility and do take action can reap positive results. PepsiCo, for example, was able to identify energy-savings opportunities as a result of a carbon management and energy assessment program it undertook with its suppliers. The savings was not small – it totaled $60 million. However, savings are not always realized. It has been estimated, for example, that the cost of an iPhone could effectively double if it were manufactured in the United States, under stricter labor standards.
The question is, as companies strive to meet the demands for increased transparency, will a more ethical supply chain ultimately pay off for companies in the form of improved reputation as well as customer and employee loyalty?
Software Advice, a company that reviews supply chain management software, recently conducted a series of surveys with the objective of helping business owners and supply chain managers better understand consumer attitudes towards improving the ethics and environmental impact of the supply chain. The surveys found that, on average, consumers would pay for more for a product made by a company whose supply chain is ethical and has a reduced environmental footprint. For example, survey respondents indicated that they would pay as much as $27.60 more for a $100 product that was made by workers working in good conditions.
Does attitude equal behavior?
Ian Robinson of the University of Michigan and his team conducted an experiment at a suburban Detroit department store. The researchers placed identical socks side by side on display. Some socks were labeled as coming from factories with good working conditions. When priced the same, half of the customers chose the ethical socks. When the researchers increased the price of the ethical socks, the number of customers who chose ethical socks dropped to 33%. When the price of ethical socks increased to 20% or more than the regular socks the number of customers who chose the ethical socks dropped further – to 15%.
And why do consumers care?
Ahir Gopaldas of Fordham University’s business school conducted a study called “Marketplace Sentiments.” The objective of the study was to gain insight into why certain consumers are willing to spend more on “ethical products.”
The study defines marketplace sentiments as “collectively shared emotional dispositions toward marketplace elements.”
The study’s abstract explains that:
“From outrage at corporations to excitement about innovations, marketplace sentiments are powerful forces in consumer culture that transform markets. This article develops a preliminary theory of marketplace sentiments. Defined as collectively shared emotional dispositions, sentiments can be grouped into three function-based categories: contempt for villains, concern for victims, and celebration of heroes.”
Gopaldas notes that these sentiments are “critical to understanding how consumer culture works.” Specifically that:
“Contempt happens when ethical consumers feel anger and disgust toward the corporations and governments they consider responsible for environmental pollution and labor exploitation. Concern stems from a concern for the victims of rampant consumerism, including workers, animals, ecosystems, and future generations. Celebration occurs when ethical consumers experience joy from making responsible choices and hope from thinking about the collective impact of their individual choices.”
What does this mean for the supply chain?
The internet, social, media, and the IoT is making it less possible for companies to not only have skeletons in their closet, but also less possible for companies to have skeletons in general.
Consumers, regulators, and businesses are all calling for more transparent supply chains. Companies that listen, and who identify ways by which they can improve the ethics and environmental impact of their supply chain will be rewarded.
by Fronetics | Jan 19, 2015 | Blog, Supply Chain
The call for more transparent and more ethical supply chains
Events such as hurricane Sandy, the Fukushima nuclear disaster, the Bangladesh factory collapse, and the Ikea horse meat scandal, have positioned the spotlight on the supply chain and have consumers, regulators, and businesses calling for an increase in supply chain transparency.
The increased scrutiny of the supply chain is not a result of an increase in the number of events; rather it is a result of technology. The Internet of Things (IoT) is reducing the number of “black holes” within the supply chain and offering the capability of end-to end visibility – making the supply chain more transparent. The internet and social media is also increasing visibility and transparency. Tom Seal, head of research at Procurement Professionals, astutely points out that:
“The internet and social media leave almost no dark rocks for corporations to hide under.”
It is here that it is important to make the distinction between transparency and visibility. David Linich, Principal, Deloitte Consulting, does this well:
“Transparency goes beyond gaining visibility into the extended supply chain. It is the process by which a company takes action on the insights gained through greater visibility in order to manage risks more effectively.”
Environmental and ethical practices within the supply are areas where there is often a “disconnect between intentions and actions.” Seal:
“It’s far simpler to change branding and marketing – and present a company as environmentally and ethically aware – than it is to reconfigure or rebuild an entire global supply chain.”
That being said, companies who do use the insights gained through greater visibility and do take action can reap positive results. PepsiCo, for example, was able to identify energy-savings opportunities as a result of a carbon management and energy assessment program it undertook with its suppliers. The savings was not small – it totaled $60 million. However, savings are not always realized. It has been estimated, for example, that the cost of an iPhone could effectively double if it were manufactured in the United States, under stricter labor standards.
The question is, as companies strive to meet the demands for increased transparency, will a more ethical supply chain ultimately pay off for companies in the form of improved reputation as well as customer and employee loyalty?
Software Advice, a company that reviews supply chain management software, recently conducted a series of surveys with the objective of helping business owners and supply chain managers better understand consumer attitudes towards improving the ethics and environmental impact of the supply chain. The surveys found that, on average, consumers would pay for more for a product made by a company whose supply chain is ethical and has a reduced environmental footprint. For example, survey respondents indicated that they would pay as much as $27.60 more for a $100 product that was made by workers working in good conditions.
Does attitude equal behavior?
Ian Robinson of the University of Michigan and his team conducted an experiment at a suburban Detroit department store. The researchers placed identical socks side by side on display. Some socks were labeled as coming from factories with good working conditions. When priced the same, half of the customers chose the ethical socks. When the researchers increased the price of the ethical socks, the number of customers who chose ethical socks dropped to 33%. When the price of ethical socks increased to 20% or more than the regular socks the number of customers who chose the ethical socks dropped further – to 15%.
And why do consumers care?
Ahir Gopaldas of Fordham University’s business school conducted a study called “Marketplace Sentiments.” The objective of the study was to gain insight into why certain consumers are willing to spend more on “ethical products.”
The study defines marketplace sentiments as “collectively shared emotional dispositions toward marketplace elements.”
The study’s abstract explains that:
“From outrage at corporations to excitement about innovations, marketplace sentiments are powerful forces in consumer culture that transform markets. This article develops a preliminary theory of marketplace sentiments. Defined as collectively shared emotional dispositions, sentiments can be grouped into three function-based categories: contempt for villains, concern for victims, and celebration of heroes.”
Gopaldas notes that these sentiments are “critical to understanding how consumer culture works.” Specifically that:
“Contempt happens when ethical consumers feel anger and disgust toward the corporations and governments they consider responsible for environmental pollution and labor exploitation. Concern stems from a concern for the victims of rampant consumerism, including workers, animals, ecosystems, and future generations. Celebration occurs when ethical consumers experience joy from making responsible choices and hope from thinking about the collective impact of their individual choices.”
What does this mean for the supply chain?
The internet, social, media, and the IoT is making it less possible for companies to not only have skeletons in their closet, but also less possible for companies to have skeletons in general.
Consumers, regulators, and businesses are all calling for more transparent supply chains. Companies that listen, and who identify ways by which they can improve the ethics and environmental impact of their supply chain will be rewarded.
by Fronetics | Jun 17, 2014 | Blog, Marketing, Social Media, Strategy, Supply Chain
Many companies within the logistics and supply chain industries are stuck on the social media starting line. The reason – “they can’t get past the word ‘social’ and the perception it creates.” The reality is that social media is a tool that can be utilized to create value and grow your business.
This is the third in a series of articles that provides examples of companies within the logistics and supply chain industries who have moved beyond the social media starting line and have realized the business value of participating in social media.
Sourcemap: End-to-end supply chain visibility
In the wake of events such as hurricane Sandy, the Fukushima nuclear distaster, the Bangladesh factory collapse, and the horse meat scandal, businesses and consumers are increasingly demanding supply chain transparency.
Sourcemap is a social network which provides end-to-end visibility within a supply chain. Sourcemap offers supply chain mapping, crowdsourced RFIs, risks and alerts, and KPI dashboards. Launched by researchers at MITs Media Lab, Sourcemap was recently named one of Spend Matters Top 50 companies to watch.
Figure 1: What Sourcemap Offers
Sourcemap connects producers, manufacturers, and consumers for end-to-end visibility. Manufacturers can use Sourcemap to trace products down to raw materials, to manage risk, to and plan more resilient, efficient supply chains.
Consumers can use Sourcemap to learn where things come from and what they’re made of, including their social and environmental impact.
Stonyfield used Sourcemap to create an interactive sourcing map for its yogurt – to show consumers where the ingredients that go into their yogurt comes from.
Consumers simply click on an ingredient shown on the map (Figure 2) and then are shown information about the specific ingredient (Figure 3).
Figure 2
Figure 3
In the process of creating the map, Stonyfield engaged suppliers and fostered increased communication and stronger relationships. These relationships, this communication, and the ability for companies (and consumers) to know their supply chain from end-to-end is what Sourcemap wants to provide.
Sourcemap takes social media and makes it a vital supply chain tool.
