Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

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


Published on

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

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

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

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