The Limits of Supply Chain Responsibility: A Critical Analysis of Corporate Responsibility Instruments

Abstract

One challenge in the area of supply chain management has been achieving sustainable compliance with labour rights throughout the entire production chain, including lower tiers of production. This article inquires specifically around sub-contracting, especially what is a brand's or a buyer's responsibility regarding workers' rights beyond its first tier of suppliers. In-depth literature on this issue remains scarce despite buyer's responsibility being at the core of outsourcing, the very area that brought disrepute to Nike and thus moved corporate social responsibility (CSR) in the international limelight 15 years ago. This article reviews 12 prominent CSR instruments and asks: do they provide legitimacy to calls that buyers should be responsible for labour conditions down their supply chains? Where do these responsibilities end as abuses become more remote and take place at lower tiers of the value chain? What are the concepts, the principles that attribute responsibility to the buyer company and what concepts are used to limit these responsibilities? What strategies exist to improve conditions at sub-contractor level? Reading a dozen CSR instruments with a keen eye to sub-contracting reveals a staggering diversity of answers. The responsibility of the core company, particularly the limits of responsibility, move in and out of focus. Questions around buyers' responsibilities remain open, but there is a wealth of concepts and experience to draw upon. Professor Ruggie, a United Nations Special Representative of the Secretary General, could bring clarity in this area of CSR and is invited to reconsider the justification, scope and content of a buyer company's responsibility to protect workers' rights in its value chains.

Corporate Social Responsibility in Garment Sourcing Networks: Factory Management Perspectives on Ethical Trade in Sri Lanka

“…Guiding mechanisms and management tools to encourage socially responsible practices often have questionable effectiveness in the apparel supply chain, given the complexity and the inherent focus on sourcing cost and lead time (Mamic, 2005;Welford and Frost, 2006;Mares, 2010).…”

Human Rights and Corporate Social Responsibility in Developing Countries’ Industrial Clusters

“…A recent wave of scholarly research has become preoccupied about the capacity of firms in developing countries' industrial clusters to comply with western CSR policies and management practices that are respectful of workers and others' human rights (e.g. Barrientos, 2008;Blowfield and Dolan, 2008;De Neve, 2009Lund-Thomsen and Nadvi, 2010;Mares, 2010;Barrientos et al, 2011;Milberg and Winkler, 2011;Taylor, 2011;Lundan and Muchlinski, 2012;Mezzadri, 2012Mezzadri, , 2014Nadvi and Yoon, 2012;Rossi, 2013;Lund-Thomsen, 2013, Jamali et al, 2014. Yet such research is still at an early stage and coming from different scholarly traditionsi.e.…”

“…First, I discuss why the human rights discourse is more adequate to address the social and environmental repercussions of business in industrial clusters, than the CSR (and related 'codes of conduct') discourse. Second, I elaborate a novel typology of industrial clusters based on: (i) level of respect for human rights in cluster, reflected by respect of the duty not to cause harm and promotion of universal human rights; and (ii) the extent to which cluster 5 There is also a strand of research that is preoccupied with the capacity of MNCs to ensure that no violations of human rights are committed by firms in their value chains -and particularly by suppliers located in developing countries (Arnold and Bowie, 2003;International Commission of Jurists, 2008;Mares, 2010;Lundan and Muchlinksi, 2012, among others), but this literature does not focus specifically on industrial clusters. firms have explicitly adopted CSR policies in their business practices.…”

Transfer of responsibility between supply chains

“…Managerial issues, such as supplier compliance to ethical guidelines are discussed (e.g. Egels-Zandén, 2007;Locke et al, 2013), highlighting the importance of considering responsibility outside of the boundaries of the own corporation (Björklund et al, 2012;Mares, 2010).…”