Improving outcomes for workers in global supply chains
The business and human rights agenda has boomed in the last 20 years. Stimulated by the Exxon Valdez disaster and sweatshops scandals of the 1990s, the social compliance industry came into being, along with all manner of international frameworks, sector standards, voluntary sustainability schemes and multistakeholder initiatives. In 2011, the landmark UN Guiding Principles for Business and Human Rights were launched, and the business world started to use the term human rights due diligence.
The trouble is that in spite of this busy-ness, it’s really hard to see if outcomes for workers are improving. This article in the Financial Times does a good job at summarising progress and – sadly – lack of it.
There are lots of reasons for this, many of which are outside the control of individual companies. But we spend a lot of time being busy – trying to agree impact indicators, battling over whether the term "ESG" will yield better results than "sustainability", and generally obsessing over data and technological solutions. The advent of human rights due diligence is a real opportunity to do things differently, but so far I see a lot of activity on risk management and reporting but virtually nothing on the more challenging parts of the cycle that could actually improve working conditions.
Aren’t we missing the point?
We’re not looking at context or results
We're not using real world knowledge to understand what drives change for workers, we’re not being honest about the effort it takes, and we’re certainly not being transparent about our collective (lack of) progress. I’m calling this cluster of problems the "outcome gap". The Outcome Gap is dedicated to enhancing the results and impact of all things human rights and supply chains. We ask: what does due diligence mean in practical terms for businesses, and what actions are they undertaking in its name? Do these actions work? If so, for whom? How do we know? And how do we scale the solutions that work for workers, and scale back the efforts that don't?
So what’s the solution?
There is never going to be one simple fix to a problem as complex as we face here. But there are a few things that may help which the Outcome Gap will pursue:
Understanding that impact is not for us to claim – impact can only be determined by workers themselves. How can we get strategic direction from workers and channel their feedback, safely, at scale? Could this become a sustained new management system within global companies?
More focus on the big picture results of due diligence efforts, so we move away from supporting one supply chain at a time, one company at a time, one factory or farm at a time. How can we share learning about what works at sectoral or national levels? How are efforts plugged into national development ambitions and barriers? Is collaborative action the key? Or would public labour data be an answer?
More focus on how effectively human rights due diligence is practiced. So much attention and investment goes into risk mapping, but we're not supporting companies in their "so what" - once risk is identified, then what? How are strategies to improve conditions established? Which datapoints and data sources will lead to the most accountable and honest results? How do we scale up what works and scale back what doesn't?
Staying alert to new legislation to prevent slippage into compliance. We have an opportunity with new legal requirements on human rights due diligence to create new ways of doing business for the benefit of workers in global supply chains - lets not waste it.