4 ms·

See No Evil: Transparency in the Supply Chain

63 points by eaguyhn 8y ago

joveian 8y ago
"We’ve chosen scale, and the conceptual apparatus to manage it, at the expense of finer-grained knowledge that could make a more just and equitable arrangement possible." There is some truth to that, but there are also cases where companies monitor the root hairs of the supply chain for quality but forbid the quality inspectors from reporting any human rights issues they see (and/or they arrange the inspections to limit the chance that they will see any such issues). IIRC (I don't have a good link at the moment but will update if I find one), this is particularly likely to happen with industry run certifications like Rainforest Alliance or Forest Stewardship Council where the certifications claim to do detailed tracking for environmental or social reasons but because they are run by companies that profit off of exploitation they rather provide a framework for punishing suppliers with quality issues. It is a very much intentional situation and not just on the part of companies but also the governments of powerful countries that ensure that exploitative arrangements are available. It is not, as the author claims, something that was made possible by the internet but is a defining aspect of the last at least five hundred years of world history, the major driving force behind colonialism. For anyone who cares about human rights or history it is a vital topic to pay attention to. In terms of how to attempt to avoid at least the worst of the exploitation when buying things, look for fair trade certifications or other certifications that have a fair trade aspects that are supported by labor and human rights organizations and not just industry group. Avoid buying from the largest food and clothing companies as they are some of the worst offenders. Support politicians and labor and human rights organizations that work to hold companies accountable for their supply chain conditions.
- dannydomb 8y ago
  I am currently working for a company trying to encourage different domains to actually have data to back up their claim that their products is fair trade, child labor free, etc. I can tell you that except a very handful of companies, nobody can back their claim that their certifications is worth anything. Most of our projects end up being buried since it would prove that the industry have been lying for a long while. It doesn't matter if you are trying to buy fair trade products or not, it mostly isn't.
  - joveian 8y ago
    You may be right, however a benefit of certifications supported by labor rights or human rights organizations is that those organizations have some ability to contact affected workers. Even if those certifications aren't as good as they claim I would need evidence that those rights organizations are not doing anything helpful to convince me that the certifications are completely worthless (although supporting the rights organizations is also necessary for certification to have any influence at all). It is possible that the list of certifications supported by rights organizations is smaller than I would think. I will point out that various organizations with large marketing budgets have a vested interest in convincing as many people as possible that nothing you can do matters and you shouldn't try to do anything different. I have come across the issue you are describing with even somewhat decent-seeming certifications (Cradle to Cradle, which is not backed by rights organizations as far as I know and is mostly a self audit sold by a consulting company) so I'm not saying you are necessarily doing marketing. I am interested if you have any other comments on this topic. Edit: Another benefit of certifications is that it can open companies to lawsuits where they are selling products that they wouldn't be exposed to without making claims based on certifications.
    - TaylorAlexander 8y ago
      The benefits you mention seem valid, but I would also point out the problem of complacency. If people falsely believe that buying “rainforest certified” products means they aren’t impacting the rain forests, they’ll feel satisfied with their efforts. If they knew however that the label was a lie, they’d maintain their guilt for hurting the earth and feel motivated to do more. False certifications pacify the people from making more real change.
      - joveian 8y ago
        I think it is a good idea to keep in mind that the lucrative business opportunity here is convincing potential customers that things are much better than they actually are (at the lowest possible cost), and advertising will be geared to that effect. However, this issue has been going on for hundreds of years. It is still in the US possible to buy products produced in part by slave labor, forced labor, and/or child labor. I do not belive at all that people will make "real change" even without certification. Just the legal standing aspect is a huge reason to prefer certification even if they are entirely false advertising. If you can find one that helps avoid the worst issues meanwhile, then that is even better and can directly impact someone's life today, while leaving plenty of issues left to demand change. It can also be a way to frequently remind people that there is a problem, and anyone who genuinely belives that certifications will fix the issues may be more likely to demand change once they find out that isn't true. On the flip side, people who believe there is nothing at all they can do to make a difference seem highly unlikely to demand change. So, I still think trying to find the best available certifications is one thing that people can do to potentially have a small immediate positive effect and at least establish a ritual around caring and the possibility of legal challenges to force change. I also think it is worth avoiding the wost of the worst companies and supporting politicians and organizations that are working to make larger changes. If you have alternative suggestions, please share. Here is one example that I came across recently about someone using legal standing from certification to force small changes: http://waterandsanitationhealth.com/newsroom/ http://waterandsanitationhealth.com/newsroom/
euske 8y ago
Whoa. This is such a profound piece. We praise information hiding and process isolation because it is the key to a large-scale system that is successful, and indeed it is the key to a large-scale system that is successful! Of course the information get hidden away, and we have to face its consequence.
jacques_chester 8y ago
> It’s entirely possible to have an astoundingly effective supply chain while also knowing very little about it. Not only is it possible: it may be the enabling condition of capitalism at a global scale. In Hayek's view, this is a defining characteristic of capitalism. There is a "structure of production", far too vast for any planner (or supply chain management expert) to comprehend. But it works anyway through a process of distributed information discovery coordinated in the minimum by prices. Put another way: without prices, it stops working at all, SAP or not. Where supply chain management mostly comes from is that to the extent that companies can add to price-based coordination, they can improve profitability for the participating members of the supply chain. The classic problem is "the bullwhip effect". We recognise a similar phenomenon in buffer bloat. Where you have local inventories and local optimisation, you can get a great deal of unpleasant oscillation.

63 points by eaguyhn 8y ago

"We’ve chosen scale, and the conceptual apparatus to manage it, at the expense of finer-grained knowledge that could make a more just and equitable arrangement possible." There is some truth to that, but there are also cases where companies monitor the root hairs of the supply chain for quality but forbid the quality inspectors from reporting any human rights issues they see (and/or they arrange the inspections to limit the chance that they will see any such issues). IIRC (I don't have a good link at the moment but will update if I find one), this is particularly likely to happen with industry run certifications like Rainforest Alliance or Forest Stewardship Council where the certifications claim to do detailed tracking for environmental or social reasons but because they are run by companies that profit off of exploitation they rather provide a framework for punishing suppliers with quality issues. It is a very much intentional situation and not just on the part of companies but also the governments of powerful countries that ensure that exploitative arrangements are available. It is not, as the author claims, something that was made possible by the internet but is a defining aspect of the last at least five hundred years of world history, the major driving force behind colonialism. For anyone who cares about human rights or history it is a vital topic to pay attention to. In terms of how to attempt to avoid at least the worst of the exploitation when buying things, look for fair trade certifications or other certifications that have a fair trade aspects that are supported by labor and human rights organizations and not just industry group. Avoid buying from the largest food and clothing companies as they are some of the worst offenders. Support politicians and labor and human rights organizations that work to hold companies accountable for their supply chain conditions.

dannydomb 8y ago
I am currently working for a company trying to encourage different domains to actually have data to back up their claim that their products is fair trade, child labor free, etc. I can tell you that except a very handful of companies, nobody can back their claim that their certifications is worth anything. Most of our projects end up being buried since it would prove that the industry have been lying for a long while. It doesn't matter if you are trying to buy fair trade products or not, it mostly isn't.
- joveian 8y ago
  You may be right, however a benefit of certifications supported by labor rights or human rights organizations is that those organizations have some ability to contact affected workers. Even if those certifications aren't as good as they claim I would need evidence that those rights organizations are not doing anything helpful to convince me that the certifications are completely worthless (although supporting the rights organizations is also necessary for certification to have any influence at all). It is possible that the list of certifications supported by rights organizations is smaller than I would think. I will point out that various organizations with large marketing budgets have a vested interest in convincing as many people as possible that nothing you can do matters and you shouldn't try to do anything different. I have come across the issue you are describing with even somewhat decent-seeming certifications (Cradle to Cradle, which is not backed by rights organizations as far as I know and is mostly a self audit sold by a consulting company) so I'm not saying you are necessarily doing marketing. I am interested if you have any other comments on this topic. Edit: Another benefit of certifications is that it can open companies to lawsuits where they are selling products that they wouldn't be exposed to without making claims based on certifications.
  - TaylorAlexander 8y ago
    The benefits you mention seem valid, but I would also point out the problem of complacency. If people falsely believe that buying “rainforest certified” products means they aren’t impacting the rain forests, they’ll feel satisfied with their efforts. If they knew however that the label was a lie, they’d maintain their guilt for hurting the earth and feel motivated to do more. False certifications pacify the people from making more real change.
    - joveian 8y ago
      I think it is a good idea to keep in mind that the lucrative business opportunity here is convincing potential customers that things are much better than they actually are (at the lowest possible cost), and advertising will be geared to that effect. However, this issue has been going on for hundreds of years. It is still in the US possible to buy products produced in part by slave labor, forced labor, and/or child labor. I do not belive at all that people will make "real change" even without certification. Just the legal standing aspect is a huge reason to prefer certification even if they are entirely false advertising. If you can find one that helps avoid the worst issues meanwhile, then that is even better and can directly impact someone's life today, while leaving plenty of issues left to demand change. It can also be a way to frequently remind people that there is a problem, and anyone who genuinely belives that certifications will fix the issues may be more likely to demand change once they find out that isn't true. On the flip side, people who believe there is nothing at all they can do to make a difference seem highly unlikely to demand change. So, I still think trying to find the best available certifications is one thing that people can do to potentially have a small immediate positive effect and at least establish a ritual around caring and the possibility of legal challenges to force change. I also think it is worth avoiding the wost of the worst companies and supporting politicians and organizations that are working to make larger changes. If you have alternative suggestions, please share. Here is one example that I came across recently about someone using legal standing from certification to force small changes: http://waterandsanitationhealth.com/newsroom/ http://waterandsanitationhealth.com/newsroom/

euske 8y ago

Whoa. This is such a profound piece. We praise information hiding and process isolation because it is the key to a large-scale system that is successful, and indeed it is the key to a large-scale system that is successful! Of course the information get hidden away, and we have to face its consequence.

jacques_chester 8y ago

> It’s entirely possible to have an astoundingly effective supply chain while also knowing very little about it. Not only is it possible: it may be the enabling condition of capitalism at a global scale. In Hayek's view, this is a defining characteristic of capitalism. There is a "structure of production", far too vast for any planner (or supply chain management expert) to comprehend. But it works anyway through a process of distributed information discovery coordinated in the minimum by prices. Put another way: without prices, it stops working at all, SAP or not. Where supply chain management mostly comes from is that to the extent that companies can add to price-based coordination, they can improve profitability for the participating members of the supply chain. The classic problem is "the bullwhip effect". We recognise a similar phenomenon in buffer bloat. Where you have local inventories and local optimisation, you can get a great deal of unpleasant oscillation.