Kategoria: in English

Julkaistu

Law or Codes – Germany Works on Business and Human Rights Plan


Germany would be a good role model for supply chain cooperation between business and unions. Of course there are major disagreements but this does not stop the social partners from taking joint responsibilities for human rights at work in producer countries. This picture is from the last of three multi-stakeholder Conferences arranged in 2015 by Development Ministry BMZ, to prepare the German National Action Plan for implementing the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights.

Will brands, retailers and other buying companies voluntarily respect human rights in their global supply chains? Are voluntary commitments reliable, or do we need legislation? Can consumer country laws help improve working life in producer regions?

These questions were very much present when German businesses and stakeholders met recently for a third and final conference in the run-up to a National Action Plan for implementing the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights.  Next step will be drafting a proposal to be discussed with all stakeholders, beginning early next year.

How will Germany build a balance between civil society expectations and business preparedness? All of us who are engaged in promoting supply chain responsibility are surely waiting to see how the country will apply the business part of the UN Guiding Principles – “Protect, Respect and Remedy”.

Germany’s National Action Plan will influence also other countries. Europe’s biggest economy is actively promoting sustainability in global supply chains. We have seen this clearly during its 2015 G7 Presidency when the country has put business and human rights on the leading industrialised countries’ common agenda.

Business concerned over unwanted negative effects

In Berlin, business representatives and social advocacy organisations were far from each other when speaking about voluntary initiatives and binding legislation.

Most business representatives preferred voluntary action as the best way to apply the due diligence required by the UN Guiding Principles. They were concerned that legislation and possible sanctions could lead many buyers to leave sensitive supplier countries and regions when they should stay and help improve conditions. If Germany would introduce more obligations for buyer companies than those of competing countries it would put the country’s business sector at a clear disadvantage, it was said.

Corporate speakers questioned whether small and medium enterprises really have the knowledge and capacity to deal with new regulations.

Business is not a uniform group but consists of companies on very different levels when it comes to sustainability issues. For ‘the best in class’, even a demanding National Action Plan would bring little change as their voluntary approaches already go much further.

This has been all too slow. Fully understanding that changes take time there should already be major improvements in the big picture.

Sub-standard wages and uncontrolled excessive working hours remain the reality in many parts of the supply chains. There is less child labour, but still too much. Forced labour continues to be a problem in some industries and regions, and freedom of association is frequently ignored. Farming is a weak area for many schemes and initiatives.

If buying companies and other businesses want to be credible when pushing for voluntary due diligence approaches they need to show more concrete results, on all fundamental human and workers’ rights issues.

Unions question CSR effectiveness 

Global unions have a more negative attitude towards voluntary corporate social responsibility initiatives than before. They say that there have been little if any results from corporate social responsibility programmes. This has driven them to close alliances with social advocacy organisations.

Deteriorating labour relations has a negative influence on supply chain cooperation. Collective bargaining has turned into a defensive union struggle as new wealth to share in negotiations is not generated anymore. Social dialogue suffers and aggressive campaigning has increased.

Trade unions do have a point when they criticise brands and retailers for largely ignoring freedom of association in supply chains. Many buyers demand that suppliers comply with child labour, forced labour and anti-discrimination rules but are quick to leave trade union rights out. This can give suppliers the impression of having a free hand to resist organising efforts. Many companies are also reluctant to engage in joint projects with worker organisations, although here the distrust is often mutual.

Unions and advocacy organisations are calling for binding legislation in consumer countries, as part of the National Action Plans. This would include the right to initiate collective legal proceedings, something like the U.S. class action lawsuits. They also call for legal sanctions against companies in these countries if they ignore their due diligence obligations.

The role of social standards and codes

Social standard and codes will continue to be important tools, as will social auditing. Collective bargaining and social dialogue between employers and workers’ trade unions can often not replace these functions.  There are no structured labour relations in many countries and regions, and all governments do not effectively guarantee decent conditions. This will continue into the foreseeable future. The aim must be that labour conditions are eventually set by local partners, through mainstream tripartite procedures. Also corporate responsibility initiatives and activities must be geared in this direction.

Environmental and other initiatives pay increasing attention to human rights and labour conditions. They are responding to business demands but also protecting their own quality and reliability. The Global Organic Textile Standard GOTS where I am engaged certifies organic textiles through a highly demanding process. The same serious and demanding approach applies to human rights and labour conditions. Many others are doing the same which does not mean their standards or codes or other tools would be as detailed as those of specialised social responsibility initiatives. There is in fact already much cooperation around capacity building, training and other activities, as well as in auditor accreditation. The National Action Plans will surely intensify this cooperation.

Whether a scheme or initiative calls itself multi-stakeholder or business driven does not have to make a big difference. Important is that they are serious, demanding and committed and produce results. Social Accountability International SAI, the Ethical Trading Initiative ETI, the Business Social Compliance Initiative BSCI, the Fair Labor Association FLA and the Fair Wear Foundation FWF are examples of cross-industrial initiatives which have set their standards and ambitions high, and which are working actively with remediation programmes. The Fairtrade movement has a similar approach in its own niches of the global economy.

None of these initiatives can guarantee that every workplace audit produces absolutely reliable results, but as verifying and certifying demands and social auditors’ skills grow, also reliability increases.

More than voluntary, less than legislation?

I would expect an approach by the Berlin government that goes further than only demanding voluntary commitments by businesses to apply due diligence in global supply chains. This would not necessarily mean that sweeping legal responsibilities or tight sanctions for buying brands and retailers would be put in place.

A National Action Plan is of course exactly what it is called, an action plan, not legislation. It is more about the process towards more responsible business practices than about a set end result.

A solution is surely now sought that meets at least part of the civil society expectations while protecting and promoting German business interests. Responsible politicians and government agencies will have a difficult task as there seems to be a mutual lack of confidence especially between business organisations and social advocacy movements. When political positioning now is giving way to concrete drafting, Germany’s influential trade unions could well play a constructive role in looking for balanced and realistic compromises.

—–

I represented the Global Organic Textile Standard GOTS at the meeting in Berlin. Human rights and labour conditions are important concerns for this organisation which is engaged in updating its certification standard. Above all, training and capacity building ‘on the ground’ is developed and growing.

This article does not express the views of GOTS and I do not write it as a GOTS representative.  These are my personal reflections and opinions, of course influenced by my background in the global trade union movement and my very active board engagements in the Global Social Compliance Programme GSCP and Social Accountability International SAI,which owns the SA8000 Social Standard.

Julkaistu

G7 Summit in Germany committed to public-private cooperation for socially responsible supply chains

Never before has supply chain responsibility attracted as much attention on high political levels as it did at the G7 Summit in Elmau Germany which closed today. The leading western industrialised countries did not only formulate policy but also committed to action in their concluding statement:

– Unsafe and poor working conditions lead to significant social and economic losses and are linked to environmental damage. Given our prominent share in the globalization process, G7 countries have an important role to play in promoting labour rights, decent working conditions and environmental protection in global supply chains. We will strive for better application of internationally recognized labour, social and environmental standards, principles and commitments (in particular UN, OECD, ILO and applicable environmental agreements) in global supply chains.

The Government of Germany deserves much credit as this would never have come about without their strong and longstanding commitment to drive and support human rights and decent working conditions in the global supply chains.

Safe workplaces are obviously among the main issues that were singled out in the declaration. As one of the concrete action points, the summit spoke out in support of a German initiative to establish a “Vision Zero Fund” together with the International Labour Organisation ILO, to support measures for improving labour, social, environmental and safety standards.

The G7 heads of state and government also committed themselves to strengthening the use OECD Guidelines for Multinational Companies in applying supply chain sustainability. This follows up on the commitments made by OECD Secretary-General Angel Gurria who together with ILO Director General Guy Ryder and World Bank President Jim Yong Kim spoke at a preparatory Conference arranged by the German G7 Presidency in Berlin in March. It will include improved complaints procedures and a strengthening of the OECD National Contact Points to deal more efficiently with these complaints.

Much of this supply chain work builds on the UN Principles on Business and Human Rights. The G7 countries welcomed the efforts to set up substantive National Action Plans. The private sector will play an important role, implementing human rights due diligence. Corporate responsibility initiatives are an important part of the cooperation between government and business, fostering sustainable supply chains and encourage best practices.

The G7 countries will also continue their support to multi-stakeholder initiatives:

– …we will strengthen multi-stakeholder initiatives in our countries and in partner countries, including in the textile and ready-made garment sector, building upon good practices learned from the Rana Plaza aftermath. We will continue supporting relevant global initiatives. Furthermore, we will better coordinate our bilateral development cooperation and support partner countries in taking advantage of responsible global supply chains to foster their sustainable economic development.

Julkaistu

Germany’s G7 social supply chain agenda calls for more positive business and union attitudes

UN - Palais Wilson in Geneva
Palais Wilson in Geneva is the UN human rights headquarters. The UN Guiding Principles for Business and Human Rights created a solid basis on which Germany’s G7 Presidency can now try to launch a new and more socially responsible approach to global supply chains. Geneva is also the home of the global social dialogue and tripartite cooperation at the International Labour Organisation ILO. Governments and the social partners need to see to it that they use the opportunity that they now have thanks to the German government and bring justice and humanity to the people who produce much of what the more well to do parts of the world consume.

The German Presidency of the G7 Group of leading industrialised countries deserves much appreciation for their activity in supporting human rights and better labour conditions in global supply chains. The Summit on Sunday and Monday at Schloss Elmau in Bavaria could set conditions that drive real improvements in conditions which still are unacceptably bad in many producing countries. At a G7 Conference earlier this spring in Berlin, where I participated on behalf of the Global Organic Textile Standard GOTS, the German development and labour ministers Gerd Müller and Andrea Nahles made their country’s commitment to improve supply chain conditions very clear. This has been repeatedly confirmed by Chancellor Angela Merkel herself in the run up to this weekend’s G7 Summit.

The obligation to ensure proper living and labour conditions for supply chain workers and their families is of course with the national governments, and the employers directly concerned. This does not mean that the international community would be free of responsibility and lack influence. The UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights are quite clear about this, both when it comes to government and business.

As labour conditions in general, the basic protection of supply chain workers should be set through legislation. This comprises the universal human rights conventions and includes the fundamental rights as defined in the ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Woirk and its Core Conventions which forbid child labour, forced labour and discrimination. Freedom of association and the right to collective bargaining is also one of these fundamental rights, although all too many employers conveniently try to forget it.

It is obvious that the G7 countries and others need to put effective legislation in place to ensure that businesses based in these countries respect these norms also when they are active abroad. This would be welcome also for those responsible buyer companies that take their supply chain commitment seriously as it would create a level playing field where good corporate behaviour would not hurt their competitiveness. This follow up to the UN Guiding Principles is in fact already in motion in many industrialised countries, large and small.

All the necessary elements for decent work are not covered by the UN Guiding Principles or Core ILO Conventions. This we can see also by looking at leading supply chain codes and standards such as the GSCP Reference Code or the SA8000 Social Standard – and many of the Fairtrade Standards – which are much more complete.

Labour legislation can define minimum requirements and thus hinder at least the most serious forms of rights violations and exploitation that could push also general conditions down. In a developed industrial relations system, laws are completed by employers and trade unions through collective agreements and social dialogue on different levels.

We are still very far from this in most important producer regions and it could take very long before local tripartite structures would bear the responsibility for regulating wages and conditions. This is of course a main reason that the UN Guiding Principles has come about.

Here we need public-private partnerships, to help make good intentions and principles into reality. The German authorities have clearly understood this and involved brands and retailers, trade unions and other stakeholders. Hopefully the business and trade union communities will also grow up to the challenge. They need to cooperate on these supply chain issues even when other interests may pitch them against each other.

Both business and unions have indeed been active as the G7 Summit comes closer.

We have seen some concrete commitments from leading businesses, in addition to general support statements for Germany’s G7 initiatives. Leading global food brands and retailers have promised to take concrete action to help realize the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) which will be formally agreed on later this year. In a letter to Chancellor Angela Merkel on behalf of the 400 Consumer Goods Forum member companies, the CEOs of Royal Ahold and Nestle commit these leading retailers and food brands to acting concretely to help secure and improve human rights and labour conditions in global supply chains.

These companies will now have to deliver on their promises which I am very optimistic about. The Global Social Compliance Programme GSCP, which works independently but is hosted by the Consumer Goods Forum, will have to play an important coordinating and supporting role. The corporate social responsibility CSR schemes and initiatives will be important tools and resources for practical on the ground work.

Maybe also the International Trade Union Confederation ITUC needs to take a new look at what CSR organisations such as SAI SA8000, ETI, FWF, BSCI and others are doing today. They have nothing to do with the paternalist approach to human resource management that sometimes has been labelled as corporate social responsibility. The CSR organisations which all involve civil society and build on third party verification of conditions in the supply chain have their main focus on capacity building and remediation of conditions at supplier workplaces. All of them have codes or standards that are clear on supporting freedom of association and the right to collective bargaining. Sometimes it is difficult for me to understand why they are not mobilised to support efforts to organise workers, gain employer recognition and negotiate fair and decent conditions.

It is equally important that buying brands and retailers and the business community more broadly understand how important it is in supplier countries that workers can organise freely and that proper structures and practices for collective agreement negotiations and social dialogue are established.

Julkaistu

As governments get more active business and stakeholders need better supply chain cooperation

Will this year be a game changer when it comes to protecting and promoting human rights, labour conditions and environmental sustainability in global supply chains? Much is now happening on different arenas and if things work out as they should, we may see major positive changes.

There is important government activity in main consumer regions of the world. Many countries are transposing the UN Guiding Principles for Business and Human Rights into national legislation. Germany is committed to drive these issues within the G7 agenda during its Presidency this year. ILO, OECD and the World Bank are all stepping up their supply chain cooperation and activities.

Also the business community is on  the move. Many of the world’s  largest brands and retailers send signals about a more active grip and closer cooperation on their supply chain sustainability issues. A key player is the Global Social Compliance Programme GSCP which already has a widely accepted Reference Code in place, complemented by a well furbished toolbox for its implementation.

Public-private cooperation is the proper and most effective way for consumer countries to positively influence social and environmental conditions in the global supply chains.

To ensure maximum efficiency and results, brands and retailers on one side and unions and advocacy organisations on the other side need to develop a constructive and pragmatic cooperation and overcome their adversarial relations in supply chain work. Conflicts in other issues should not be allowed to undermine the work for human rights and better conditions for the often very disadvantaged supply chain workers and their families. This is an area where all efforts are needed and different approaches should be accepted and supported.

Julkaistu

Governments step up supply chain involvement – business and civil society need to work together

Germany-G7

Germany has placed supply chain sustainability high on the agenda of the G7 Group of leading advanced economies. At a stakeholder conference in March in Berlin, the German Presidency announced its intentions to work for a common approach social and environmental standards. Some leading brands and retailers who form a critical mass of global buyers have sent signals that they are prepared to play an active role. This could well be through GSCP, which can make its Reference Code and other tools available.

Seeing a clear engagement of global brands and retailers to improve supply chain conditions makes me optimistic. Last week’s members meeting of the Global Social Compliance Programme GSCP in Los Angeles confirmed this commitment.  And no, it is not really a result of anyone ‘putting pressure on’ or ‘forcing’ them, or any other adverse campaigning and publicity.

The UN Principles for Business and Human Rights – the Ruggie principles – and their follow up both by the public and private sector are of course important. International buyers understand the need for due diligence when managing supply chains, be it about their own work or that of their suppliers and contractors. Universal human rights conventions and international labour norms create a solid basis for this.

This task is not new for most large brands and retailers. They have their own sustainability personnel and are active on the ground, working with their supplier factories and farms. Smaller companies go even further than most, like Swiss apparel retailer Switcher and German Hess Textiles. Both have a hands on approach to ensure social and environmental compliance in the supply chains.

Corporate social responsibility initiatives such as Social Accountability International (SA8000), the Business Social Compliance Initiative BSCI, the Ethical Trading Initiative ETI and the Fair Labor Association FLA have been working for decades to support and promote human rights and decent working conditions in global supply chains. The Fairtrade movement has long traditions as well, as does the Fair Wear Foundation FWF, to mention two others.

These are just some of the many initiatives that contribute to better supply chain conditions, some on a multi-stakeholder basis and some business driven with a civil society contribution. More important than their structures are the code framework withing which they operate, and their concrete support for remediation and capacity building. Of course there are problems, even failures at times, and these schemes cannot cover all needs.

On the environmental side we have a similar situation with dedicated initiatives like the Global Organic Textile Standard GOTS and the Rainforest Alliance – and many others – certifying compliance, informing consumers and supporting companies and supply chain workers.

Better and mutually recognised social auditing
liberates resources for training and remediation

Much is now happening on the social responsibility agenda. The factory catastrophes in Asia exposed limitations and also shortcomings, and led to tighter auditing rules and other improvements. Capacity building and remediation at workplaces is being stepped up. Harmonisation and convergence of codes and standards through GSCP and its Equivalence Process enable mutual recognition of audit results and liberate resources for real positive change.

The social auditing industry itself has been an active partner in these developments. Two years ago at a GSCP conference in San Francisco, I stressed the need for these companies to get organised and establish their own ethical guidelines. This is now happening and the social auditing industry has created its own association.

There has also been much done by specialised organisations such as the Social Accountability Accreditation Services SAAS. SAI has linked SA8000 certification and social auditing to supplier self assessment and remediation, through its innovative Social Fingerprint approach. BSCI – which has the by far largest membership of all schemes – has also tightened up and clarified its auditing rules.

GSCP Supply Chain Conference Shenzhen April 2012

The first years of GSCP were spent on building up a toolkit for applying the principles of the Reference Code. Meetings with buyers and suppliers were an important part of this work. The final tools were then dealt with and agreed by the Executive and the Advisory Board. All tools are freely available. Here, buyers from leading global brands and retailers meet with representatives of both boards in Shenzhen in China in April 2014. This meeting was hosted by Wal-Mart, world’s largest retailer.

The social audit companies themselves work closely with GSCP on minimum auditing standards which create a common base for helping achieve proper conditions, which satisfy the needs of buyer companies, are accepted by civil society, and are supported by the concerned public authorities. A dedicated, efficient and competent social auditing industry needs to play an important and active role in developing the best ways to protect human rights and improve working conditions.

GSCP Reference Code and other Tools
are good basis for G7 supply chain work

All this is now related to important government activity in the consumer regions. The UN Guiding Principles are transposed in national legislation of many countries. Germany, which has this year’s Presidency of the G7 group of major advanced economies, has committed to drive these issues within the common agenda.

At a recent G7 meeting in Berlin, where I had the opportunity to be present as a representative of GOTS, the top directors of OECD, ILO and the World Bank committed their support and pledged cooperative action of their own to help achieve the goals.

GSCP has an important role in channeling a concrete business contribution to the public-private partnership that will be needed to bring about real change and improvements. An initiative of the Consumer Goods Forum CGF, GSCP groups together a critical mass of global buying companies both within and outside this consumer goods industry itself. Its Reference Code as well as the extensive and publicly available toolbox can form both a demanding and realistic base for any standard-setting and implementation.

There are clear signals coming from the Consumer Goods Forum and its member companies that there will be an important upgrading of social and environmental supply chain issues on their agenda. At the same time, there is a solid understanding of the necessity to ensure the acceptance and credibility of this work with civil society.

This underlines the importance of GSCP which is based on always seeking consensus between the business driven Executive Board and the Advisory Board that represents civil society. As an Advisory Board member coming from a trade union background I can vouch for the serious and respectful approach to these principles. Indeed, the boards have never had to vote.

Time to move away from adversarial relations
that make supply chain workers pay for other conflicts

We may see major commitments made and steps taken already this year to tighten up the defence of human rights, improve labour conditions and support environmental sustainability in global supply chains. To ensure that this process will be effective we should move forward from the all too common adversarial attitudes that we have seen when dealing with global supply chains after the fire and building catastrophes of the last years.

The present labour relations climate is of course not particularly favourable for seeking compromises and consensus. Still, it should not be allowed to hinder a constructive cooperation in global supply chain matters.

The GSCP Reference Code as well as leading standards such as the SA8000 provide, when seriously applied, a solid base for a joint approach. They are clear also on common issues of contention between employers and unions in many of the consumer countries. If we are serious about respecting the rights of supply chain workers and improving their social conditions, we should not let these differences reflect on the supply chain cooperation.

Real differences should be approached
through honest and respectful dialogue

There will remain important issues to solve also if we can ensure a positive supply chain cooperation between business, trade unions and engaged non-governmental organisations. We can see this in the living wage discussions, in how to apply freedom of association and the effective right to collective bargaining, in applying working hour rules, and in many other areas. This is normal and acceptable, and the answers should be found through common deliberations, resulting in a clear message from the international community to governments and employers in supplier countries on how worker’s rights and needs have to be protected and promoted as a condition for participating in the global economy.

The common aim must be a situation where employers sit down with workers and their trade unions to freely and respectfully negotiate employment and working conditions, enabled and supported by governments through solid legislation and guarantees for an effective application of what has been agreed. We know that it will take a long time for this to become a reality and that an active involvement of consumer countries – governments, businesses, trade unions and other civil society representatives – will continue to play an important role.

Julkaistu

GSCP meets in Los Angeles – Brands and retailers strengthen engagement and can better use the GSCP platform

UniversalGate
The GSCP Members meeting in Los Angeles was held at Universal Studios, hosted by NBCUniversal.

Global brands and retailers created the Global Social Compliance Programme GSCP to define what good looks like in global supply chains. Their intention was to drive upward convergence of corporate social standards, thus enabling mutual audit recognition and better cooperation. Multiple and often repetitious audits would be avoided and resources directed to improving conditions.

The approach of this business driven initiative was serious and ambitious. The Reference Code that was to be the backbone of GSCP would be designed to fill the most stringent requirements of existing policies and social standards. This would be done together with trade unions and civil society representatives.

For many of the stakeholders that finally signed up, supporting the new initiative was far from self-evident. My organisation at the time, UNI Commerce Global Union, set its own requirements and conditions, and so did others. After a solid internal consultation process among member trade unions, UNI Commerce decided to join.

The years that we spent creating the GSCP Reference code and the toolbox to help apply it at supplier workplaces showed us that our decision had been correct.

It was a complicated exercise to reconcile the views of huge global retailers such as Wal-Mart, Carrefour and Tesco with those of UNI Commerce, the International Federation for Human Rights FIDH, and others. Still it worked, and the Executive and Advisory Boards always found common ground and agreed on solutions.

Today, GSCP is in place. An actively used environmental module complements the social responsibility instruments. Membership is up and global brands and industries have joined forces with traders. Many programmes and projects are using GSCP tools for capacity building and remediation. Cooperation with UN agencies and others is steadily increasing. Buyers, auditors and CSR schemes use the GSCP equivalence process to enable mutual recognition and joint action.

This is happening in an environment where many union organisations, social campaigners and politicians are suspicious and even hostile towards voluntary approaches by business. The intention of some seems to be to duplicate the Bangladesh Accord on Building and Fire Safety when addressing also other countries, regions and issues.

I doubt that this would work. The Bangladesh Accord responded to an unusually grave situation in the midst of high publicity, and addressed a specific although important part of labour conditions.The way that it finally came about was also exceptional and related to a public opinion that demanded fast action by global buyers.

To bring about something similar in a less upset situation would surely require a mutually respectful relationship where serious intentions of others are recognised and accepted rather than looked at with suspicion and often immediately discarded. In today’s strained economic and labour relations climate, this would call for much re-thinking on all sides.

It is much more realistic to accept and develop multiple approaches to improve the social situation in global supply chains. Governments need to secure the basic respect for human rights as well as decent conditions for workers and their families. Trade unions must have the right and the capacity to give workers a voice in an environment where social dialogue and collective agreements become mainstream tools for regulating wages and employment conditions. Social advocacy associations and other non-governmental organisations need to be positively engaged.

Business driven but with a solid civil society participation, GSCP comes together for its Members Conference and a joint Executive and Advisory Board Meeting this Thursday, in Los Angeles. Priorities will be defined and concrete tasks set.

A platform rather than an operative CSR scheme, GSCP deals with similar issues as individual standard organisations. Still, the programme is different from the schemes and initiatives. GSCP does not conduct audits, issue certificates or engage directly in concrete capacity building and remediation at workplaces.

GSCP has a unique convening power among brands and retailers, much due to the serious commitment of its host association, the Consumer Goods Forum CGF. An important task for GSCP is indeed to mobilise responsible brands and retailers both within and outside the consumer industry for concerted action to help improve supply chain conditions.

To focus on particularly difficult or widespread supply chain problems may well be useful when real changes are sought. Successful projects on this basis can be good catalysts for further remediation of conditions. It is important to set any aims so that they build on the GSCP Reference Code principles of setting standards on the highest existing levels. To go below this could easily lead to misunderstandings or false interpretations and even harm other sustainability activities.

Even if individual issues are singled out for special attention, GSCP cannot distract itself from its core mission as a whole. The GSCP Reference Code is and must remain the backbone of all policies and programmes, to ensure cohesion, credibility, impact and respect.

The final aim of this social responsibility work is a situation where employers and workers can agree on relations and conditions through mutually respectful social dialogue and collective agreements, supported by governments. To achieve this requires that buyer companies help ensure full compliance with universal human rights standards and international labour norms, also where national legislation or policies are not on these levels.

GSCP is an exceptionally good forum to develop joint approaches which then can be implemented through multiple programmes and partner organisations. The UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights is now being included in national legislation and programmes. The German Presidency of the G7 Group of leading industrialised countries has placed supply chain sustainability high on the common agenda for 2015. These are but some of the developments that directly affect GSCP and its role as a convening platform.

The corporate sector wields much power in the globalised economy. GSCP exists to help leading global brands and retailers as well as other parts of the business community to ensure that universal human rights and decent labour standards are respected and applied in global supply chains. This is – and should be – in the interest of all. Without this contribution by the business community itself, change would be both slower and less effective.

This engagement is now building up within GSCP and should be actively nurtured. The member brands and retailers should more clearly show their commitment to GSCP as their common sustainability platform. This would not weaken their ties with schemes and initiatives who have their own missions and roles. GSCP itself should have the members’ support to speak out on their behalf for these business driven activities that are firmly anchored in civil society.