NEWS ANALYSIS
NORTH AMERICA
Government: blind to rights abuse?
Moves need to be made to identify human rights violations in global supply chains, writes Malcolm Wheatley
DO GOVERNMENTS practice
what they preach? In the case of
the US government, the answer
would seem to be ‘no’, according
to a hard-hitting report from the
International Corporate
Accountability Roundtable
(ICAR), an advocacy organisation
focusing on corporate and
social responsibility.
How come? Because, as the
largest single purchaser in the
global economy, with an annual
procurement spend of $350$500bn, the US government
purchases through global supply
chains. And, points out ICAR, in
its drive to maximise the value
from each taxpayer dollar, some
of those government supply
chains can be traced back to
countries where the rule of law
and respect for human rights is
weak or nonexistent.
Consequently, ICAR charges, it
should come as no surprise that
the US government’s global
supply chains are linked to a
range of human rights violations.
Put another way, it turns a blind
eye to human rights and labour
practices in other territories that
are outlawed in the US.
“Apparel purchased by the
US government is made in
factories that lack adequate
protection from health and safety
risks, use child labour, pay low
wages, and have excessive
working hours,” sums up ICAR, in
its report Turning a Blind Eye?
Respecting Human Rights in
Government Purchasing.
Human harms
Nor is apparel the only sector
where these abuses occur, it
adds: “Other sectors with
widespread human harms include
electronics, mineral extraction,
agriculture and seafood, and
logistical and security support.”
November/December 2014
government procurement
activity should follow particular
codes of practice with respect
to human rights and corporate
and social responsibility, but it
isn’t always easy to costeffectively monitor such things,”
says Dr. Soroosh Saghiri, senior
research fellow at the Centre
for Strategic Procurement and
Supply Chain Management at
Cranfield University School
of Management.
Western cultures
Child labour laws are not universally enshrined in local cultures around the world
Authored by three respected
academics – Robert Stumberg,
Anita Ramasastry, and Meg
Roggensack – the reports pulls
few punches.
Even so, says Amol Mehra,
ICAR’s director, the organisation
was startled at its findings. “Was
it a shock to discover human
rights abuses in the US
government supply chain? No.
What was surprising was the scale
of the abuses uncovered. It’s right
across the supply chain,” he said.
Nor, adds Mehra, is there any
evidence that the supply chains
of other national governments
will be markedly different.
Indeed, he argues, as the world’s
largest purchaser, the US
government is probably in a
better position than many other
governments to police its supply
chains, with a view to preventing
human rights abuses associated
with fulfilling government
procurement contracts.
But is such policing a practical
proposition? While ICAR
welcomed a recent national
action plan for responsible
business behaviour, tabled at the
United Nations by the US
government, others point to the
challenges in turning aspiration
into reality. “It’s easy to say that
Moreover, he adds, the human
rights for corporate and social
responsibility agendas of Western
cultures don’t necessarily always
gel easily with local values in
non-Western societies. Gender
equality, for example, isn’t
universally enshrined within local
cultures around the world,
likewise child labour laws.
That said, ICAR is promoting a
five-step plan to at least enshrine
greater respect for human rights
within government procurement
processes. Included are a tighter
definition of what constitutes an
abuse and what doesn’t, greater
prominence in procurement
decisions to be given to suppliers’
ability to police their respective
supply chains, and tougher
penalties where abuse is found.
However, even ICAR
acknowledges that such steps
are but one dimension of a
broader, longer-term shift in
government procurement
practice – and one that moves it
further away from low-cost,
lowest-bidder purchasing.
If so, cautions Cranfield’s
Saghiri: “At some point there will
have to be a debate about
taxpayers’ willingness to pay for
this assurance of ethical
standards with their taxes.”
Quite so. n
www.procurementleaders.com
Photo: paul prescott / Shutterstock.com
8