Companies: what does implementation, monitoring and verification mean?
Tuesday, 10 April 2007 16:03
Making the code part of the contract between the buying company and the supplier is not sufficient. Good implementation requires the integration of a range of positive actions into the company's management system and business practices including: transparency about where they source from, having people in the company who have responsibility for overseeing the implementation, informing all workers in all production units about the code, in the appropriate language, ensuring their purchasing practices don't prevent the implementation of the code and proper steps for resolving violations of the code if they are uncovered. It is also important that workers are able to report violations of a code of conduct without fear of disciplinary action.
Monitoring is the term used to describe the activities carried out to keep a close watch over implementation - to check that the code is consistently being complied with. One of the main characteristics of monitoring is that it is a frequent or continuous process. In this context “frequently” means that the independent monitoring organisation is present in the workplace often enough to be able to detect variations in behaviour or circumstances.
Independent verification is the only way either companies or consumers can realy be sure what is happening along the supply chain. This verification can only be relied upon if it is done by an organisation operating independently from the company concerned. Many companies get this verification through 3rd party auditors, often large multinational companies who are paid to visit the factories for inspections known as audits. These are not a reliable way of verifying conditions at a factory. The audits are often too short to get a clear picture, are open to fraud and rarely involve workers in ways that allow them to speak openly about the real problems at a factory. Most factories are given advance notice of the auditors’ visit allowing them to coach workers on the right answers and cover up issues that might present a problem. The best checks are done by an organisation that is truly independent (and that isn’t making a large profit from doing the audits) and local to the factory, thereby understanding the context of the audit, prevailing conditions in the industry, able to speak the same language as the workers and able to do regular, unannounced checks.
More information on audits and why they often don't uncover bad working conditions
.| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
