Should we really try to remove the #humanrights risk from our supply chains?
I had an interesting discussion recently with Sree about designing products with lower human rights risks.
The problem with the question is that human rights risks are often associated with geography, so the "easiest" "fix" is to switch suppliers to lower risk countries. We see alot of companies aspiring to switch suppliers closer to home - even proudly displaying it in esg reports.
But is that really the right solution?
Higher human rights risks often comes from poverty (more nuanced of course, but a big factor). If we switch demand away from high poverty countries, are we only making the problem worse? Like the dilemma with child labor in a sweatshop - close down the sweatshop and the child goes somewhere else, maybe worse.
So instead of removing the risk, maybe manage it? I.e. keep spend in the high risk regions (with exceptions), but double down on ensuring your suppliers operate on high labor standards. E.g. #livingwages, #healthandsafety, etc. Increase budget if that allows you to procure from suppliers with certain accreditations (e.g. #fairtrade). Engage locally and become part of the community if you have the resources. Lots of good examples of this as well.
What do you think?
Comments