Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
The ‘Protect, Respect and Remedy’ framework in supply chains: principles and practice
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×

Saving this for later?

Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime - even offline.

Text the download link to your phone

Standard text messaging rates apply

The ‘Protect, Respect and Remedy’ framework in supply chains: principles and practice

562
views

Published on

Presentation given by David Vermijs during the work session on Business and Human Rights in the ICCO offices on Februart 16th, 2011

Presentation given by David Vermijs during the work session on Business and Human Rights in the ICCO offices on Februart 16th, 2011


0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
562
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide
  • Not: whether violatedRather: whether Randstad has systems in place
  • Transcript

    • 1. The ‘Protect, Respect and Remedy’ framework in supply chains: principles and practice
      1
      16 February 201
    • 2. Before Ruggie
      Based on influence (but in two meanings: impact and leverage)
      Static
      Unclear where started and ended
      Did not look specifically at own behavior
      2
      16 February 2011
    • 3. Ruggie on Supply Chains (1)
      “Suppliers have the same responsibility to respect human rights as any other business entity.”
      OECD Supply Chains paper
      3
      16 February 2011
    • 4. Ruggie on Supply Chains (2)
      “The scope of the corporate responsibility to respect human rights extends across a business enterprise’s own activities and through its relationships with other parties, such as business partners, entities in its value chain, other non- State actors and State agents. Particular country and local contexts may affect the human rights risks of an enterprise’s activities and relationships” Commentary DGP 12
      4
      16 February 2011
    • 5. Ruggie on Supply Chains (3)
      “Where a business enterprise identifies that it has contributed through its own actions or decisions to acts by a supplier that harm human rights, it should take steps avoid or mitigate the continuation of those contributions.”
      Commentary DGP 17
      5
      16 February 2011
    • 6. Ruggie on Supply Chains (4)
      Where a business enterprise identifies that it is associated with adverse human rights impact by a supplier solely because it procures the goods or services that are provided in abusive conditions, it should carefully assess what appropriate action to take going forward, based on a combination of what leverage it possesses to change the wrongful practices of the supplier, how crucial that supplier is to its business, and the implications for human rights of any course of action.” Commentary DGP 17
      6
      16 February 2011
    • 7. Tiered Approach
      Assessment: Is there an impact in the supply chain (large companies based on risk analysis)
      Origin/cause:
      Own commission/omission: stop!
      Solely because of the link to goods/services?
       Decision Logic
      3. Act based on:
      How critical the supplier is
      What leverage it possesses
      Implications for human rights of any action
      7
      16 February 2011
    • 8. Tiered Approach
      8
      16 February 2011
    • 9. Decision Logic
      9
      16 February 2011
    • 10. Increasing Leverage
      Offering capacity-building support to the entity to help it address the problems;
      Working collaboratively with other enterprises that have relationships with the entity to incentivise improvements;
      Working with other enterprises on a broader regional or sectoral basis to incentivise improvements;
      Working with local or central government to the same ends.
      10
      16 February 2011
    • 11. Additional Points/Benefits
      Companies advised to seek advice and insights of external stakeholders
      Beyond first tier:
      Generic risk assessments
      Ensure direct suppliers do DD
      Address specific supply chain entities (eg. cobalt in DRC)
      Action oriented approach (not about blame/liability)
      Not a static model (no sphere): increase leverage
      Look at own behavior
      11
      16 February 2011
    • 12. Case of Gap
      12
      16 February 2011
    • 13. Case of Gap: 1990s
      13
      16 February 2011
    • 14. Case of Gap: turnaround (early 2000s)
      Human rights policy: clear standards towards suppliers (CoC)
      Impact assessments: identify risky countries and suppliers
      Integration: Training on child labor and other standards, incentives for suppliers and buyers, strong message from the top
      Tracking performance: audit and support suppliers, corrective action plans, publish results, publish list of suppliers
      Grievance mechanism: Hotlines, liaisons,
      14
      16 February 2011
    • 15. Case of Gap: The Test (2007)
      15
      16 February 2011
    • 16. Case of Gap: The Test (2007)
      Child labor found in India (Children as young as 10)
      Newspaper articles all over US, UK, India
      Gap responds immediately:
      Pulled clothes from store
      Children out of factory and to families
      Press release from CEO: condemning child labor
      Vendor on probation and gathering of other vendors
      Addressing as industry-wide issue by engaging with peers
      Response: Gap gets a pass
      BhuwanRibhu (Indian NGO): "They say they believe child labor should be eliminated (…) [t]his is a good start.“ (NYT, 15-11-’07)
      Mary Robinson: ‘damage proved a “two-day wonder”’ (Economist, 17-1-’08)
      16
      16 February 2011
    • 17. Contrast: Apple
      "After a difficult investigation we finally managed to clear away some of the dense fog that enshrouds Apple‘s supply chain. After comparing Apple‘s commitment with their actual performance we were surprised to find a brand with two such contrasting sides.”
      Steve Jobs: "You should educate yourself. We do more than any other company on the planet,"
      Apple only insisted it "will never disclose any information about suppliers,"
      17
      16 February 2011
    • 18. Future of Supply Chains
      Know and show!
      Look at own practices
      Capacity building
      Implications of leaving
      Grievance mechanisms
      18
      16 February 2011
    • 19. Questions?
      Does this approach provide for greater accountability in supply chains?
      Does this model apply in agricultural, forestry and related supply chains?
      Is this model applicable to other relationships (customers, governments, joint ventures)? For which does it, and for which does it not?
      19
      16 February 2011
    • 20. Thank you for your attention
      20
      16 February 2011
    • 21. Contact Info
      David Vermijs
      david.vermijs@gmail.com
      Tel. + 31 6 4348 9690
      21
      16 February 2011