Collaboration & Technology Survey Analysis Pdf

Collaboration and Technology:
Analysis of Research
June 2009

Enabling Responsible Supply Chains

Background

► Fair Factories Clearinghouse (FFC) received a grant from the Levi Strauss Foundation
to conduct research on collaboration and the role technology can play in
facilitating or furthering companies’ collaborative efforts on supply chain
practices.
► FFC devised a survey inquiring about respondents’ perceptions on five key areas:
§ Current Collaboration Practices
§ Collaboration and Role of Technology
§ Drivers & Obstacles to Collaboration
§ Future Aspirations for Collaboration
§ Facilitating Collaboration Through Technology: Options for Consideration
► 101 people from companies (sector with highest response), NGOs, academics,
governments, and auditing firms provided input into the survey results
► The FFC then solicited additional company input through individual interviews to
clarify which tools will best aid companies in effective collaboration.


Overview

► Executive Summary: Key Findings & Conclusions
► Tools for Investment
► Current Collaboration & Obstacles to Collaboration
► Future Aspirations for Collaboration
► Appendix


Key Findings: Collaboration in General

► Companies that do, highly value their collaboration efforts, particularly sharing
audit results and their participation in Working Groups and MSIs. “In order to move
beyond looking at CSR as risk management and privatized enforcement of labor laws,
engagement is crucial”
► Companies say they want to collaborate more, but few invest in a large scale
activity, and financial resources are not allocated to support prioritized
collaboration areas.
► There is a high degree of interest in the development of one shared audit, using the
same audit tool, but its adoption is unclear. “The holy grail would be the shared audit:
many companies share one audit and the results are shared using technology”
► Companies increasingly want to see collaborative resources being used for
remediation, not just identification of issues. ”We need to focus more on issue solving
and remediation rather than issue finding. Resources should be spent in increasing factory
capacity to resolve issues. “We need to shift the focus from auditing to training the factory to
manage their own issues”
► The most challenging collaboration obstacles are attitudinal - lack of
trust/confidence in other companies or auditors, unwillingness to share, concerns
about free riders, inability/unwillingness to accept other’s efforts. “Many companies
believe their program is better than any collaborated or shared system”; “I don’t trust that other
brands are going to follow up in a meaningful way”; “It is unclear whether I can trust another
company’s audits”


Key Findings: Technology & Collaboration

► Technology is not a game changer. While it alone will not drive collaboration, it
can be an enabler. Technology cannot overcome attitudinal obstacles to
collaboration, but it can provide transparency into the activities of key actors in
the community (factories, companies and auditors), and identify opportunities for
joint activity.
► Investment and participation are generally low in collaborative technology tools
and/or shared data platforms.
► Technology is currently, and can continue to be, helpful in efficiently collecting,
storing, sharing and analyzing data, such as Corrective Action Plans/Remediation
plans, auditing findings, monitoring protocols. Additional investment in trend reports
on these data would be worthwhile as well. “Technology facilitates data sharing, especially
across geography and time zones”
► Where technology can facilitate the identification and execution of joint audits,
more resources can be spent on joint remediation. “With a shared audit, companies
can then use resources to jointly work on remediation”
► Companies are looking to technology to improve efficiency of collaborative
efforts. Technology must be user-friendly. It must increase efficiency, be web-based,
integrated with Outlook and ensure accurate information sharing. “Technology has to
make collaboration more efficient”
► “Shared data platform fatigue” was listed as an inhibitor. Many commented
that the overabundance of shared data platforms is complicating collaboration. One
shared data platform would alleviate duplication across platforms, remove silos of
information, and avoid confusion and frustration on which system to use.


Key Findings: Technology Tools

► No one technology tool is a game changer. Companies expressed amazingly
equal interest in all the tools, with a slight preference toward Factory Profiles.
► Launch of collaborative tools is made complicated by distinct needs. Companies
want the tools to reflect their internal programs, which may be incompatible for
collaboration. The tools will need to be flexible and configurable to support both
needs.
► Companies want a tool to track information about their own vs. other auditing
practices, with simple to use reports on activity, including dashboards on
performance
► Communication tools and social networking tools (blogs, etc) would be useful to
share best practices
► Universally companies want trend analysis from various sources of data.
► With few exceptions, companies felt technology tools should be free, or at a low
cost with a pay-to-use model.


Conclusions for FFC

• Technology can increase transparency: Technology cannot overcome the attitudinal
issues and risk aversion that inhibit collaboration, but should increase transparency,
which can help build trust, particularly toward auditors and other companies

• Data Sharing is Pivotal to Collaboration: FFC should continue to provide and improve
an effective and easy-to-use platform for data sharing of audit results, scores and
remediation activities. Consider increasing the potential to share or participate in
remedial activity.

• Profiles will increase transparency and, therefore, build trust: FFC can increase
transparency by pursuing the concept of Profiles, providing increased information about
Factories and Companies, derived from all actors in the supply chain

• Technology can facilitate future activity: FFC will facilitate future shared audits or
trainings, such as Matchmaking and Shared Calendar

• Shared Calendar is desirable: Everyone in the Social Compliance community can
benefit from a centralized calendar outlining upcoming trainings, meetings, and
conferences. This can be hosted on the FFC website.

• Companies are unwilling/unable to pay for the tools: Foundation and/or other
funding sources will need to be identified to develop tools.

• Work with similar organizations: Industry needs the FFC to seek out other shared
platform providers to assess partnership and collaborative program opportunities.

Profiles can help shed light on the performance and activity
of factories, companies and auditors

Factory Profiles - How has factory Company Profiles - Company
performed? Measures could include: Philosophy, Strategies, Tools, such as:

► Number of Audits conducted ► Code of conduct
► Number / type of non-compliances found, ► Audit methodology
pending remediation and remediated
► Compliance benchmarks
► Trainings and certifications received
► Threshold and zero-tolerance issues
► Management practices/Trainings
► Remedial strategies
► Progress over time
► Auditor preferences

Auditor Profiles - Companies could increase
their knowledge about auditors, including:

► Profile of audit firm (how many years in business, clients, etc.)
► Profile/CV of auditors (skills, knowledge, experience, etc.)
► Audit methodology
► Standard/Code used
► Reviews from clients (a la “Yelp”)

Profiles - Input Received

► Factory profiles received almost universal support
§ The most popular idea was to release aggregated performance indicators on
factories derived from various sources (within and outside FFC).
§ Keen interest also found in factories submitting data on their compliance history,
goals, performance and progress.
► Auditor profiles seen with merit, but concerns on timing
§ This seen as a means of gaining visibility on other auditors used by companies,
but not as an internal tool (many seemed to feel they have chosen their auditing
firms with their own due diligence).
§ Many prefer to wait until the Social Auditor Standards project is finished.
► Company profiles least popular, but still seen as interesting.
§ Many felt company profile data already being captured and available, but were
draw to the idea of filling out only one very comprehensive information form and
having that readily available.


Matchmaking uses technology to identify opportunities and
to create shared audits and remediation activity with like-
minded companies

Matchmaking of Factory Activity Company Matchmaking

► Companies would be matched with ► Using information from Company
other brands planning an audit in the Profiles (see previous page), can match
same facility in an upcoming window companies on the basis of:
of time
§ Codes components
► Can include remedial activity in a
facility for joint action § Zero tolerance & Threshold issues

► Alerts would also be sent re: § Compliance benchmarks
identified opportunities for joint § Audit methodology
activity (shared factories with no
audits, or pending remediation § Involvement in Joint Codes, etc
verification, etc.) (FLA, ETI, etc)

► Can specify if audit /remediation will § Preferred auditors
be performed by company or by § Company Values
external auditor
► Can be done in conjunction with audit
► Can also include past audits, for matching
comparison purposes
► One, comprehensive form can be used
► May utilize a shared calendar as well, for all company inquiries
to include activities such as trainings

Matchmaking - Input Received

► Matchmaking on opportunities for joint activity in audits and remediation
was seen as having best impact
§ Almost universal interest in automatic matching of other companies sourcing from
their factories
§ Many sought system identification with alerts on audit opportunities (i.e., no audit
from either company, planned audits in same time period) or remediation
opportunities (i.e., CAPs past deadlines needing verification)
§ Support for audit subscriptions, where companies could post that it is seeking a
joint audit, and system matches them with others seeking an audit as well
§ It was pointed out that coupling this function with a calendar function would make
shared audits more efficient
§ Many felt this would be most helpful in additional areas of the supply chain (such
as licensees, secondary suppliers, raw material suppliers)
§ Concerns raised on matchining on various aliases of suppliers, part. in China
► Company matchmaking was seen as too piece meal to work.
§ Most companies felt they should find the right collaboration partners themselves,
based on company profiles, as well as other information they have on the entirety
of the program.


Shared Calendar could allow a window into upcoming audits,
remedial activity, and capacity building programs

Audits Factory Activity

► Audit schedule across companies, also ► Master calendar to record, store and
identifying overlap share across companies key factory
activity, such as:
► Audit scheduling tool to request and
deploy joint audits with external § Meetings
auditing firms / auditors
§ Root-cause analysis
§ Trainings

Social Compliance Activities

► Master, centralized calendar to record,
store and share - and invite participation
in - collaborative activity, such as:
§ Projects
§ Trainings
§ Conferences and Meetings


Shared Calendar - Input Received

► Companies want a centralized calendar for shared audits, but fear maintenance
§ Support for an audit scheduling calendar that matches planned audits in “windows
of time” for shared facilities (linked to factory matching program)

§ Many fear that it would be very high maintenance, and wonder how to maintain an
external audit scheduling calendar - APIs would be necessary

► Universal support for shared calendar listing all social compliance functions
§ FFC was asked to support a centralized calendar for upcoming conferences,
webcasts, trainings, and meetings, with links to vendors for additional information


Formal Collaborations center around Joint Codes of Conduct
and Multi-Stakeholder Initiatives, and all are generally useful.

Most popular of CURRENT Forms of Would like to collaborate more
► Formal Collaboration in the FUTURE

► Joint Codes of Conduct ► Joint Projects in a specific geography
with other brands (i.e., BSR’s Beyond
► Joint Projects in a specific Monitoring, Jo-In, MFA Forum)
geography with other brands
► Multi-Stakeholder Initiatives (i.e.,
► Multi-Stakeholder Initiatives Better Work, GSCP, MFA Forum, WRAP,
SAI)
► Company program certification
system ► Shared Data Platforms (i.e., FFC, Sedex)

“In order to move beyond looking at CSR as risk management and privatized
enforcement of labor laws, engagement is crucial.”
“Collaboration in factories between the brands helps reduce audit fatigue
and resources for both the factory and the brands. It also helps the brands
focus on key issues in the factory, by using better business leverage.”
“Collaboration needs to get more targeted and outcomes-oriented. “


Chart average values displayed

Companies rely heavily on informal collaboration;
particularly Industry Groups and advice from trusted brands

Most useful forms of CURRENT Would like to collaborate more in the
► Informal Collaboration FUTURE

► Industry Working Group (i.e., BSR, ► Conduct trainings together with other
EICC, PSCI, ICTI, AAFA, etc) brands
► Ask advice from other brand(s) on ► Worker grievance channels through a
specific compliance or remediation joint service
issue(s)
► Conduct trainings together with other
brands
► Conduct joint audits with other
companies
► Conduct joint remediation with other
companies “Collaborative relationships are
based on trust. I need to believe
in the efforts of companies I
work with.”


Companies are currently collaborating on Labor, Environment
and Health & Safety Issues


Companies are sharing their Audit Reports with other
companies, and that garners the most impact.

► Companies are Sharing:
Over half of the companies thought
that sharing Audit Results was the
► Factory lists most useful for their company.

► Audits (results)
► Remediation / CAP reports
► Other tools (i.e., audit tools, compliance
benchmarks, specific policies, etc.)

“Sharing speeds up learning.”
“Sharing audit results with other companies
increases our own leverage.”


Companies collaborate with those who are similar to them,
or with those they trust


Most companies do not allocate $$ investments specifically for
collaboration, nor do they track where do invest or ROI

The (relatively) few companies who responded to this question indicated they’re
spending between $10K - $50K on Collaboration and Less than one FTE, and
did not measure investment return or savings as a result of collaboration


Obstacles to collaboration are attitudinal: lack of trust in other
companies and auditors - combined with risk aversion


Technology listed as overcoming barriers, but mostly other
things are needed


In the future, respondents would like to see, above all else,
collaborative trainings with other brands

Types of Desired Collaboration Cited Types of Training Cited:

► Joint capacity building and ► Management systems
training with other brands
► Root cause analysis
► One monitor standard
► Remediation
► Joint audit tool to share audits
► Grievance mechanisms
► Joint management of licensees ► Cultural differences training
► Joint approaches to remediation ► Regional trainings
solutions and timelines
► Labor, empowerment and life skills


Respondents did not have strong preferences on where they
would invest capital, with a slight emphasis on joint training
and remediation


In the future, technology can be most helpful in efficiently
collecting, storing and sharing data

Data to be shared through Other ways technology can aid
► technology collaboration

► Corrective Action ► E-training
Plans/Remediation plans
► Facilitating meetings with other brands
► Audit findings
► Monitoring protocols
► Statistics on what the major problems Key points
are, sliceable by region, product type,
and graphs on trends for the major
violations ► Ensure it will interface well with Outlook
► Shared factories to make it practical to use

► Shared training opportunities ► Ensure confidentiality

► Best practices ► Allow anonymity
► Match names (particularly for China)
► Factory audits should be sortable by
date and who performed the audit


72% believe that technology aids them in their collaboration
efforts

Technology is essential to
► Challenges Remain
collaboration

► Facilitates data sharing, especially ► Disparity in software and databases
across geographies and time zones create challenges
► Allows for scaling up of individual ► Need to overcome the risk aversion that
efforts many companies still have about
technological collaboration
► Eases communications with everyone:
factories, workers, other companies,
stakeholders
► Simplifies access
► Promotes opportunity
► The holy grail would be the shared “Technology has the capacity to truly
change the face of collaboration, and is
audit: many companies share one absolutely essential in order for
audit and the results are shared using companies to fully collaborate.”
technology. Companies can then use
resources to jointly work on
remediation

Besides improving working conditions, respondents hope to
reduce costs and increase efficiency through collaboration

What do you hope to achieve through collaboration?

§ Improved working conditions
§ Enhanced performance/effectiveness
§ Shared expertise
§ Elimination of redundancy, enhanced efficiency
§ Reduced costs

Least important:
§ Access to tools
§ Easier vendor implementation


Shared e-learning platform could provide opportunities for
scaling joint trainings for suppliers

► Companies are seeking ways to scale-up the reach of their supplier
trainings through technology
► E-Learning could provide opportunities to deliver trainings to more
suppliers, at less cost, and for multiple companies
► Sharing platform to share and access training materials and tools for
collective use would also be useful
► Shared calendar can provide opportunities to ‘piggy-back’ with other
companies on their training opportunities.


In addition to technology, respondents seek increased
auditing credibility & standardization, and a clear ROI


76% of Respondents were from Companies; Largely in
Consumer Products and Retailers


Demographic information about survey respondents

► 101 people provided input into the survey
► Most who company respondents were in the CSR or Social Compliance
function
§ 20% were from Environmental Compliance and Supply Chain
► Most had more than 2 years experience in the field; 25% with over 10
years experience.
► Only those from companies were asked to complete the entire survey as
the questions were geared toward their experience


Collaboration & Technology Survey Analysis Pdf

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (18)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (8)

Similar to Collaboration & Technology Survey Analysis Pdf

Similar to Collaboration & Technology Survey Analysis Pdf (20)