From policing to partnership: the birth of a new paradigm

In terms of language and tools, and thanks in part to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, the field of social sustainability has come a long way. We have witnessed a shift in terminology: from compliance to post-compliance, from assessment to continuous improvement, from responsible sourcing to responsible supply chains. Underlying this shift lies a relational shift, one concerning the relationship between buyer and supplier.

This blog aims to explore, discuss and celebrate this shift in attitude, language and practice when it comes to the shift from policing to partnership, and to explore the implications for responses to COVID-19.

From policing…

Historically, the responsibility for investing in working conditions and wellbeing has primarily been placed on the suppliers. While consumers demanded more ethical products, brands were under pressure to purchase from fully compliant suppliers, not necessarily suppliers who were transparent about their shortcomings and willingness to improve.

The underlying assumption was that suppliers and suppliers alone were solely responsible for working conditions and worker wellbeing.

The focus on compliance and the associated audit model did improve certain issues, such as core health and safety requirements. But often more complex issues, such as abuse and forced labour, were driven underground. As suppliers grew accustomed to the policing mentality of social compliance monitoring, the focus became “passing the audit” rather than being transparent about critical issues they were facing in relation to their workforce. If suppliers lacked the financial means or technical expertise required to achieve compliance, it was often their loss. The underlying assumption was that suppliers and suppliers alone were solely responsible for working conditions and worker wellbeing.

...to partnership

By the end of the decade, the language within social sustainability started to shift from risk and policing, to post-compliance and partnership. This transition reflected different assumptions in relation to managing relationships with suppliers. There was a desire within the industry to move beyond the audit, an admission that working conditions and worker wellbeing were subject to seasonal fluctuations and continuous change. Most brands acknowledged that these issues required continuous monitoring, rather than the occasional check-in.

Fast forward to 2020, and we find ourselves in the midst of a global pandemic. As the world grapples with the impact of COVID-19 on economies, supply chains, and workers, it can be easy to fall back into old habits, neglect responsible supply chain management and treat suppliers as expendable.

However, if there was ever a moment to entrench the dramatic transition we were beginning to see in 2019, it’s now.

The new normal: responsible supply chains in the context of pandemics

The past three months have involved accelerated learning, disruption, and resilience of an intensity that is unprecedented in our field. The COVID-19 crisis has necessitated more collaboration and simultaneously made policing impossible, given travel restrictions. The direct and indirect manifestations of the virus and related measures have a mutually devastating impact of broken supply chains. The pandemic is not anyone’s wrongdoing, but a challenge that everyone faces. Brands and suppliers are facing a shared problem which is affecting every sector, every corporate division, every supplier and every part of the supply chain. No single party can overcome this crisis alone. Policing tools, such as supplier assessment systems that give suppliers a score and make them solely responsible for solving the problem, are not going to help suppliers and buyers overcome the challenges posed by this pandemic.

But a partnership model can. Why? Because in this way, the focus is placed on mutual recovery and resilience rather than wrongdoing or corrective action.

What does a partnership model look like?

A partnership approach means that both brands and suppliers understand the mutual impact of any given challenge relating to working conditions and worker wellbeing, and both parties wish to collaborate to address the challenge where possible. In practice, brands and retailers have strategic suppliers: those businesses on which they depend for particular goods and services, relationships in which brands and retailers invest both in terms of time and other resources. It is often in this context that we typically find this partnership model operating.

In short, a partnership model assumes a mutual recognition that “we are all in this together”.

When a brand or retailer refers to having a partnership approach with suppliers, this doesn’t mean that the brand literally finances - either in part or in full - the resolution of every challenge or that the supplier even wants or needs the brand to be actively involved in addressing all issues. It means simply that there is often a greater degree of transparency in both directions, and that there is a good listening basis for the two parties to address any issue by being supportive in whatever way is realistic. It also means that when facing a significant challenge - such as the discovery of recruitment fees having been charged - that the supplier is encouraged to share these new insights and can ask for help from the buyer where and when such help is needed. It is up to the buyer indeed as to how and whether they can best support the resolution or remediation of a given situation. But a dialogue is always assumed to be both possible and desirable when an issue has been reported or insights - such as those from direct worker reporting - about an issue that workers regard as an urgency, appears.

In short, a partnership model assumes a mutual recognition that “we are all in this together”.

Looking ahead

Realistically, there is no one-size-fits-all approach to partnerships. Most supply chains are too big and too diffused to pull out a partnership model at every tier. Small suppliers, without a large output and historical relations with the brand, might fly under the radar without some policing. While some uncovered issues may not require the brand to foot the bill, it stands to reason that most issues require shared responsibility and shared cost. Some brands might not have the resources to fund and materially address every problem at every supply site. But all brands can apply a partnership lens to the way they engage with suppliers.

While not every brand can pull off a partnership with every supplier in every supply chain, a partnership lens is feasible for anyone at any time.

How do you regard your supplier? Are they viewed with suspicion and distrust? What if you considered them as partners with valuable suggestions, solutions and experience? How would that change your relationship and partnership with them? Would that trigger a greater level of transparency and cooperation? Those who are practising such an approach, and the growth in this population speaks for itself, certainly think so.

Many brands are now consciously journeying towards sustainable social impact. Now is the time for these forward thinking brands to engage on a deeper level with their suppliers, recognising and openly discussing the gaps and challenges both face. While not every brand can pull off a partnership with every supplier in every supply chain, a partnership lens is feasible for anyone at any time. If, as we have seen during this pandemic, such partnering and open dialogue about challenges is feasible in a crisis, then why not beyond it? In a supply chain, as in a pandemic, “we are indeed all in this together”.