We're celebrating 10 Days of Membership! Today's Gift: $20 off your professional membership with promo 10DAYS20OFF
Training, policies and tools to help HR prevent and respond to harassment claims.
Is your employee handbook keeping up with the changing world of work? With SHRM's Employee Handbook Builder get peace of mind that your handbook is up-to-date.
Develop your HR competencies and knowledge in-person in 12 U.S. cities or virtually.
#SHRM18 will expand your perspective – on your organization, on your career, and on the way you approach HR. Join us in Chicago June 17-20, 2018
One-quarter of apparel makers are flouting a California law by not disclosing their efforts to combat human trafficking, a University of Delaware (UD) study, published in April 2012, found.
The California Transparency in Supply Chains Act, which took effect Jan. 1, 2012, requires companies doing business in California topost onlinewhat they are doing to prevent human trafficking in their supply chains.
After studying 86 online disclosures of what apparel companies are doing to comply, Marsha Dickson, professor and chair of UD's Department of Fashion and Apparel Studies, found that apparel companies can still do more to improve their online information about these efforts.
“We could not find disclosures for one-quarter of the companies,” Dickson said. “Half of the statements were far from obvious—requiring consumers to delve deeply into the companies’ websites through inconspicuous links” such as “about us,” “investor relations” and “library.”
Another common shortcoming was whether companies require their direct suppliers to certify that the materials used in the products are made in accordance with laws on human trafficking and slavery. “Most companies referenced their contractual purchase orders with direct suppliers,” Dickson said, “but those would infrequently extend to materials suppliers, as those suppliers would contract only with the company assembling the end product.”
Lagging companies should follow what some industry leaders are doing in this area, Dickson advised. She pointed to The Jones Group, whose brands include Jones New York, Anne Klein, Rachel Roy and Nine West, as its disclosures not only addressed all elements of the required disclosure but also contained supporting evidence for each of its statements.
The California law requires retailers and manufacturers with more than $100 million in annual revenue doing business in the state to disclose on their company websites “with a conspicuous and easily understood link to the required information.”
These disclosures must include to what extent, if any, the business engages in verification of product supply chains to evaluate and address risks of human trafficking and slavery, conducts audits to evaluate supplier compliance with company standards for trafficking and slavery in supply chains, and provides company employees and management who have direct responsibility for supply chain management with training on human trafficking and slavery.
A report providing examples of best practices by companies in meeting—and exceeding—these requirements has been published by the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility (ICCR), a coalition of activist shareholders who support policies that promote social justice and economic sustainability. The report, Effective Supply Chain Accountability: Investor Guidance on Implementing the California Transparency in Supply Chains Act and Beyond, is meant to serve as a guide for others, whether or not they are subject to the California act.
“Company awareness of these risks and knowledge of the ways that traffickers may use a company’s products, services [and] workplaces in connection with their trafficking activities can help companies avoid negative publicity, business interruptions, potential lawsuits, public protests and a loss of consumer trust, all of which can impact shareholder value,” according to the report. “Monitoring suppliers, contractors and sub-contractors and tracing to raw materials can help companies to ensure that measures are in place throughout the company’s entire supply chain,” ICCR advised.
According to the Rev. David Schilling, ICCR’s program director for human rights and resources, “It’s next to impossible to completely eradicate the exposure to human rights violations from multilinked supply chains, but the best companies understand that it’s better to confront this issue head-on. They actively look for and report on these violations every day and have strong remediation policies in place to address them … and that’s what sets them apart from their competitors.”
Among the best practices cited in the report:
Stephen Miller, CEBS, is an online editor/manager for SHRM.
You have successfully saved this page as a bookmark.
Please confirm that you want to proceed with deleting bookmark.
You have successfully removed bookmark.
Please log in as a SHRM member before saving bookmarks.
Your session has expired. Please log in again before saving bookmarks.
Please purchase a SHRM membership before saving bookmarks.
An error has occurred
Recommended for you
Join SHRM's exclusive peer-to-peer social network
SHRM’s HR Vendor Directory contains over 3,200 companies