abusesaffiliationarrow-downarrow-leftarrow-rightarrow-upattack-typeblueskyburgerchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-upClock iconclosedeletedevelopment-povertydiscriminationdollardownloademailenvironmentexternal-linkfacebookfilterflaggenderglobeglobegroupshealthC4067174-3DD9-4B9E-AD64-284FDAAE6338@1xinformation-outlineinformationinstagraminvestment-trade-globalisationissueslabourlanguagesShapeCombined Shapeline, chart, up, arrow, graphLinkedInlocationmap-pinminusnewsorganisationotheroverviewpluspreviewArtboard 185profilerefreshIconnewssearchsecurityPathStock downStock steadyStock uptagticktooltiptwitteruniversalitywebwhatsappxIcons / Social / YouTube

這頁面沒有繁體中文版本,現以English顯示

文章

2020年8月28日

作者:
Peter Bengtsen, Global Policy

Commentary: Scholar analyses existing models for monitoring global supply chains; finds inadequacies in current framework

"Why Are Monitory Democracies Not Monitoring Supply Chain Slavery?", 28 August 2020

... Now, after 20-30 years of abuse disclosures by corporate watchdogs and media, several Western democracies – and even the EU itself – are developing legislation to address the private sector’s failed supply chain due diligence. Promising parts of the new laws and proposals include the possibility of sanctions for companies and the recognition of remedy for victims, but a key part is missing: Who will monitor? How do we adequately and systemically monitor for supply chain abuses that goes beyond status quo, the flawed private audit efforts and the fragmented civil society efforts. How do we transcend that border?

...

Currently, it is possible to speak about three distinct – private, public and civil society – monitory approaches:

...

Each of these three monitory approaches – private, public and civil society – have merits and flaws, but it is safe to say that none of them are currently meeting the bar for an adequate, systemic and global monitory model.

...

Below, I share some simplified monitory model ideas that might fill the cross-border monitory gap. In brackets, I state the key operator of each model:

#1: The auditor liability model (private sector)

#2: The multitude model (civil society)

#3: The monitory model (civil society legitimized by individual governments)

#4: The mandate model (civil society legitimized by multiple governments)

...

Credible and systemic cross-border supply chain monitoring would serve a threefold purpose by:

  1. Having a preventive effect on worker abuses by employers, and empowering worker groups involved in workplace monitory systems.
  2. Increasing the pile of labour abuse evidence, which would inform the work of groups who are building lawsuits against companies covered by the new due diligence laws or sharing evidence with relevant authorities who have mandate to act, e.g. the American Customs and Border Protection agency.
  3. Distributing more equally and fairly the monitory attention to all companies covered by the new laws. In a lawsuit paradigm, the few companies taken to court receive most of the attention, while the majority fly beneath the radar.

隱私資訊

本網站使用 cookie 和其他網絡存儲技術。您可以在下方設置您的隱私選項。您所作的更改將立即生效。

有關我們使用網絡儲存技術的更多資訊,請參閱我們的 數據使用和 Cookie 政策

Strictly necessary storage

ON
OFF

Necessary storage enables core site functionality. This site cannot function without it, so it can only be disabled by changing settings in your browser.

分析cookie

ON
OFF

您瀏覽本網頁時我們將以Google Analytics收集信息。接受此cookie將有助我們理解您的瀏覽資訊,並協助我們改善呈現資訊的方法。所有分析資訊都以匿名方式收集,我們並不能用相關資訊得到您的個人信息。谷歌在所有主要瀏覽器中都提供退出Google Analytics的添加應用程式。

市場營銷cookies

ON
OFF

我們從第三方網站獲得企業責任資訊,當中包括社交媒體和搜尋引擎。這些cookie協助我們理解相關瀏覽數據。

您在此網站上的隱私選項

本網站使用 cookie 和其他網絡儲存技術來增強您在必要核心功能之外的體驗。