Child labour and talk are too cheap - meaningful action is what counts.

David Cameron is using a platform in Vietnam today to announce the UK's initiative to stamp out child labour in supply chains. Don't get me wrong, I find child labour absolutely abhorrent and really do believe in the power of responsible procurement. However, I doubt Cameron's initiative to stamp out child labour, based on all companies with a turnover of over £36m publishing an annual slavery and human trafficking statement, will have any significant impact.

Does David Cameron actually believe that companies have that sort of supply chain visibility or even the skills? Does the public sector have that sort of visibility and skills?

The initiative will require companies to declare what checks they have in place. What would be considered acceptable robust checks? Will Cameron's minister who leads on public procurement be in a position to be accountable to parliament and the electorate for the steps public procurement have taken - if not it is a bit hypocritical to not to lead by example. Perhaps Cameron should add this to his wish-list of EU reforms - that will be popular but then isn't cutting red tape a big issue too!

How is the initiative going to be communicated to UK companies? August is unlikely to be the best time to raise awareness.

In companies which do become aware of the initiative who will have ownership and be accountable? Will it be allocated to the Health & Safety Officer like so much of environmental purchasing, the CFO as part of their accounting statements, the CPO who control so little of the budget decisions, marketing who will want to put a good gloss on whatever the reality is, or the risk manager who is often a voice crying in the wilderness? Whoever holds responsibility will be a good indicator of how seriously the initiative is taken - why doesn't Cameron insist there's a named responsible owner?

I assume the statement will need to be audited in some form, who will do that?

What if the companies don't comply? It appears the sanction is criticism! Is that supposed to be a serious sanction? I have previously discussed reputational risk linked with supply chain abuses and how it really doesn't seem to manifest itself  in the market. I have also questioned the conviction of politicians to see some of these great ideas through to the end rather than just looking for something to say in a speech.

So, do I expect to see some discernible change in five years against today's benchmark? Actually is there a benchmark against which progress will be measured?

PS 31 July 2015 - here's a link to the relevant section of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 

Perceptions of Gartner's No. 1 in supply chain management

CIPS Ethical Procurement & Supply eLearning & Certificate

I can only give CIPS praise today for the introduction of its Ethical Procurement & Supply eLearning and certificate.

The training covers: eradication of unethical behaviour to the human race, eradicating corruption and exploitation, and, personal conscience, compliance and influence. The content, is bang up to date and well presented.

I spent sometime yesterday completing my employer's compulsory 'Compliance with Governance, Anti-bribery and Corruption Awareness' eLearning and test too. So I half expected the CIPS eLearning to have been a bit easier. However, I found the training, informative, quite demanding and not something I could rush through.

There's quite a nice mix of reinforcing detailed case studies and tests on the way through which give you a warm-up to the final test. On completion of the training, which probably took me in the region of four hours, there's a final test which is no pushover but leads to a Certificate. Perhaps useful as a Personal Objective for all procurement staff.

The eLearning and test is free for CIPS members until October 2014. I'd encourage CIPS to continue to offer the training and test free of charge as part of the overall membership offer but perhaps embed it into membership renewal, otherwise I suspect it will slip off the radar. Nevertheless, an excellent CIPS offer which I recommend.  

Such a shame responsible supply chains can only pull

I'm sure you all remember the rhetoric which followed last year's clothing factory collapse in Bangladesh. The Minister was going to put the world to right by shaking his finger at the retail sector and the retailers were quick to make promises of compensation. Sadly a year later, the hot air has cooled and little was delivered on the commitments. It appears Primark, the great villain at the time, are one of a small group of retailers who actually delivered on their promises.

However, it also seems that supply chain managers who pride themselves on pulling goods through the supply chain seem unable to make sure that the compensation promised is pushed back down the supply chain to those who desperately need to receive it. Donations have been ad hoc and there are a lack of records of who received the compensation and systems in place to support distribution.

Wouldn't we be amazed if retail buyers were unable to trace their supply chain back and satisfy themselves of the flow of goods from the factory floor to the shop shelves. Wouldn't we also be amazed if they couldn't trace payment of invoices and receipt of credit notes through the supply chain. Wouldn't we be amazed if supply chain managers didn't have contract management and performance management systems in place to ensure quality and timeliness of delivery. That being the case, can there be any excuse for not making sure the victims of the Rana Plaza factory disaster are still waiting and paying the price?  

Retail buyers need to think about reducing the impact of factory fires

Only a few months ago I cautioned against retail buyers relaxing their guard due to the proposed agreement on minimum safety workers for Bangladesh factory workers.

Now we learn that factory fires are a weekly occurrence and there appears to be a culture among those responsible for the factories  'comes with the territory'. Would it be acceptable if 800 garment workers in the UK were dying as a result of factory fires.

Don't get me wrong, I am not the enemy of retail buyers but I really think they are in a position to make a difference through their procurement approach. My question is 'Are retail buyers including in their contracts and obligation to provide adequate fire escapes, fire alarms, first aid, fire fighting training and evacuation training?' if they are not they can't claim they are taking commitments to sustainable procurement as seriously as they could. If they are, what are their processes to ensure those commitments are honoured? 

Even if they buying firms don't view fire safety of their supply chain workers are their concern, perhaps they need to reflect on reputational risk and adverse impact on supply chain flows. 

Now let's accept that there are always a range of alternative ways of solving a problem, and the problem is that factory owners want to reduce their costs as opposed to investing in the 'option' of worker safety, equally they don't want to make investments which place their own factory at a disadvantage. That being the case why don't the UK retail buyers combine their influencing power and insist that those in government improve worker safety through stronger health and safety regulation and building regulations, and the effectiveness of the inspection regime? 

Good news for buyers and workers on Bangladesh factory safety?

Last week I discussed the ongoing problems in Bangladesh clothing manufacturing and the reluctance to pay the agreed minimum wage - thankfully that moved on and agreement was reached. Although I can't help but feel that spirit of responsible manufacturing was somewhat lacking, after all the Prime Minister had to intervene.

Today we have learnt that three stakeholder groups are close to agreement on minimum safety standards (Accord on Fire and Safety in Bangladesh, Alliance for Bangladesh Worker Safety, and National Tripartite Action Plan). This is potentially a good result for the European retailers involved but is it good enough?

The new standards will simplify inspections and therefore reduce costs to the buying organisations. They will also reduce inspection costs and disruption in the factories. Likewise the legally binding commitment of some of the buyers to maintain orders levels for the next two years and to share the cost of factory upgrades are positive steps for the workers.

However, if I was on the Board of one of the buying firms would I be relaxing? No, I don't think so. Consciences may be salved. New standards are good but can Board members of buying firms be sure they will be implemented, and that the standards are of sufficient level that the Board member would feel safe working with those as the minimum standard for the corporate HQ? No, this tentative agreement between such a varied group of stakeholders is likely to reflect consensus on the lowest common denominator as opposed to the best optimum solution for workers and buyers  - it is a step in the right direction but not the end of the journey,

CPOs have no cause to relax, they need to complete a risk assessment of the new regime and they need to made sure they are not abdicating responsibility. If the standards aren't high enough and there is another disaster, it won't be good enough the blame the standards - caveat emptor!

Retail clothing buyers to make a difference through contracts?

I think we all felt the stain of shame with the deaths of so many low paid garment factory workers in Dhaka some months ago. Even Michael Fallon, a government minister, summoned the great and the good of retail procurement to take corrective action.

It's not remotely clear what actually changed but here's a suggestion.

Given the UK debate on the cost of living and whether the living wage should be mandated in government contracts, that the average wage of a garment factory worker in Bangladesh (making UK High Street brands) is only $39 per month, that police have just used rubber bullets and teargas to quash a protest of 400,000 garment workers seeking a monthly wage of $100 (£62) which led to production stoppages in 200 factories, that the Garment Manufacturers and Exporters Association have just rejected the recommendation of the Bangladesh Minimum Wage Board to pay a rate of $67 per month, why don't UK High Street retailers collectively place a contractual obligation on their suppliers to pay the minimum wage agreed by the Bangladesh Minimum Wage Board, backdated to its date of recommendation? Is that too much to demand? Too much of a Christmas present? Too reasonable? Too responsible?

P.S. 14 November 2013 following the intervention of the Bangladesh Prime Minister the Garment Manufacturers and Exporter Association have accepted the Board's recommendation. UK buyers should still enforce adherence through contracts though otherwise there's a risk that implementation will not take place. 

Time to take a stand on UK slavery in supply chain management

This weeks cover story of the Sunday Times Magazine heaps more shame on retail supply chain management and the suggestion that UK supermarkets are best of bred. 

I've frequently discussed the issues of supply chain management and even advocated that we need 'undercover supply chain managers'. Horsemeat and pork of poor providence, foreign factories with unacceptable health and safety, and poor working conditions - we've discussed them all even though the Public Administration Select Committee were led to believe retail procurement is an exemplar.  

But there has to be something seriously wrong when the Sunday Times Magazine appears able to expose appalling supply chain behaviour of UK supermarkets. What we learn on pages 22-27 of the Magazine and also in the main paper is that some UK supermarkets pursuit of 'value' means slave workers, on 17-hour days, suffering beatings and sexual abuse, living in squalor, for £2.80 per day. That's a very perverse view of responsible procurement. A very perverse view of supply chain management. A very strange view of contract management. Yet these modern day slaves are not in some far flung outpost, they are working in the UK and part of the supply chains to us.

The Home Secretary plans to introduce an anti-slavery bill and Chris Byrant MP, the shadow immigration minister hopes to introduce a Transparency in Supply Chains bill. The Sunday Times has announced it is fronting a Britain's Secret Slaves campaign. The supermarkets can be expected to hold up their hands and tell us through a spate of full-page advertisements it will be address the issues after once again being exposed for poor supply chain management - but clearly the claims of learning the lessons of the past ring hollow now. 

Yet there is one voice which seems silent on these issues, CIPS. We love the glory which comes from the Purchasing Manager's Index being regularly being cited as an economic indicator - but where is CIPS actually taking a stand on retail supply chain management?  If CIPS don't take hold of this very quickly the whole profession risks being discredited.

The clothing of invisible supply chain management

It was only in April that Michael Fallon, in response to the Dhaka factory disaster, claimed the Government were going to get retailers in and find out what responsibility could be placed on retailers for their supply chain workforces. I questioned what power and appetite the Government would have for doing anything. Is anyone out their aware of what the outcome of those discussions was?

Anyway, now we learn that, if something had been committed to, it appears as if it may have been insufficient. I say that as we have now learnt of more problems in retail clothing supply chains with workers producing H&M clothing thought to be fainting, allegedly as a result of not being paid enough to buy food.

This is has a certain echo of yesterday's blog where I discussed the latest iteration of retail food supply chain failures.

As yesterday, the key lesson is that the response to retail clothing supply chain management was not effective - it failed to address what are likely to have been systemic weakness which all point to ineffective change.

The lesson for us all is that procurement risk management and contract management are not 'one offs' -they need to be embedded in culture. To me that's the question which all those responsible for procurement now need to test in their own organisations.

I also find it ironic that when giving evidence to the Public Administration Select Committee, it was advocated that public procurement should try to emulate retail procurement - perhaps that argument needs to be considered with big caveats!

M&S Bizarre ways

It never ceases to amaze me when I read the bizarre M&S label which extols 'Inspired by Italy' - what does such a bizarre claim really mean?

We know M&S has diversified and is now a bank - you can get one of their credit cards with an APR of 16.9% - I wonder what Mr Marks and Mr Spencer would have thought of that diversification strategy and the idea that customers would pay over the odds to acquire something today and then pay later. But then Mr Marks & Mr Spencer grew up in different times - banks were the friends of business and they didn't bring businesses and countries to their knees.

Mr Marks & Mr Spencer may also find the whole talk of a  'Plan A' which addresses CSR quite bizarre. That's a long way from haggling with their suppliers then handing over the cash. But like 'Inspired by ...' what do such claims really mean?

I suspect Mr Marks & Mr Spencer would find it not only bizarre but be appalled by the notion of refusing to pay their suppliers in a reasonable time.

Yet now we see the convergence of banking, CSR, supply chains and a firm going through a mid-life crisis. The result, in spite of being signed up to CSR, and the Prompt Payment Code is to reach for the contract terms and beat the small guy over the head. So now it appears M&S have depersonalised business relationships and told their clothing suppliers they will slow down their payment, from 60 days to 75 days after receipt of goods. While supply chain financing is being viewed elsewhere as a panacea (and ironically M&S have made that commitment too) something seems to have got lost on the road to recovery with M&S. We can only assume suppliers will suffer, and that all the talk of M&S being committed to ethical trade has got lost in translation. Like 'Inspired by ...' what does M&S commitment really mean?

Now here's a dilemma: is it ethical to charge your customers 16.9% APR to buy your goods and then delay paying your suppliers within say 30 days, but not pay your suppliers 16.9% APR for the delayed payment?

Ethics and behaviour at M&S, to Mr Marks and Mr Spencer, may appear very, very bizarre.

Do we need an Undercover Supply Manager

I'm sure you've caught at least a glimpse of those TV programmes where the boss goes undercover to find out what it is really like working in their firm. Wouldn't it be interesting if there was a buyer version, where the buyer goes undercover to find out what it is really like working in their suppliers firms?  A good start would be if those who award 'best of bred status' did the same. 

For example, it was only in May that Gartner crowned Apple king of the supply chain. At the time I was puzzled how, given Apple's supply chain problems, particularly with Foxconn, they could be positioned as the exemplar.    

Now we learn that Foxconn's peculiar style of human resource management does not appear to be isolated to China but is also being applied in the Czech Republic. The Sunday Times reported on the research of Andrijasevic and Saccheto. We learn of accommodation in which 80 workers share a dozen showers and two bathrooms, 12 hour shifts punctuated with only a 30 minute lunch break and two 15 minute breaks, excessively low pay and fines imposed for sitting down.

And one of Foxconn’s three Czech factories, in Kutna Hora, no longer makes products for Apple according to the reports. Why? Quite simply because Foxconn reacted to increased demands from their workers   - “when the workers started getting together to demand better working conditions, the division was closed”.

Is it really appropriate for Apple, an exemplar, to put up with these working practices and such behavior in one of their key suppliers?

Our memories seem to trick us very quickly into forgetting too quickly the working conditions which led to the deaths in Bangladesh and how supply chain management can make a difference. Nobody is accusing Foxconn of putting its workers in the obvious danger we saw in that terrible Bangladesh factory collapse, but perhaps we need more 'walking in the shoes' of the factory workers if we really want to understand what it is like to be a supplier to some of our brand leaders. 

Previously published as a guest blog on Spendmatters, 16 July 2013 

The unfortunate case of sponsorship procurement: A case study

I recently discussed the procurement of sponsorship - little did I realise that procurement of sponsorship would become quite a big political issue for London so quickly. Now we learn that Boris has found terms written into the sponsorship agreement of the Emirates Air Line (Cable Car) so unpalatable that a re-write of the 10 year sponsorship deal is required.

The are at least five issues;

1. The average man in the street knows Boris Johnston is quite outspoken - how was he unaware of a constraint in the sponsorship deal which prohibits any criticism of the deal, the UAE royal family and government? That was a big constraint but also the associate risk required careful management and a high-level of awareness;
2. The contract would be in breach if the cable service is sold off or assigned as security to a 'conflicting person' or business from a country with which the UAE has no diplomatic relations - which effectively includes any Israeli linked business - how was that constraint signed;
3. Given the alleged "anti-Israeli" clause, was the contract subjected to any equalities impact assessment?
4. Were procurement even involved in this deal?
5. How many other sponsorship contracts exist within TfL which have not been risk assessed?

We are told the contract will now be rewritten - the need for a rewrite is not only an embarrassment but also recognition of a failure to get it right in the first place. This is a lesson for all - get on top of procuring sponsorship before it get's on top of you. The acceptance of the need for contract re-negotitions in the public sector is becoming all to frequent an occurrence - just how long will this be considered reasonable?

A still small voice in procurement

Apple have revolutionised modern communications with iPods, iPhones, Macs and even to a certain extent Facetime.
But Apple have not been without supply chain problems: child labour, riots, strikes, pollution and even suicides.

Today we are yet again reminded of the on-going difficulties with Foxcom - more suicides, this time attributed to the a new 'silence mode'. Yes, one of the world's major revolutionaries in communications, Apple, has a key supplier who has banned workers from talking on the job!

While the unethical working conditions are certainly a concern to me, what really puzzles me is much more basic and relevant to procurement practitioners - are Apple a hostage to Foxconn?

One of the key objectives of the procurement professional has to be to place the buying organisation in a position of relative power and become a preferred customer. In that position the buyer should be able to bring all sorts of influence to ensure the supplier delivers what they are supposed to in a manner which is consistent with the buyer's priorities. The reality that one of Apple's key suppliers continues to damage their reputation and on occasion disrupt deliveries, can surely mean only one of two things. Either Apple don't care about ethical procurement - which appears unlikely, or Apple have little influence over Foxcom.  I'm afraid it is starting to look like the later,  if that is the case Apple have to redress the balance or continue to be held hostage to Foxconn. We all recognise being a hostage is the worst of all positions - 'how are the mighty fallen'!

On the high cost of contracting security

In 2008 an Aboriginal elder was 'cooked to death' while being transported to prison by a security contractor (the picture is of the van in which he died). I'm sure there was an in-depth investigation carried out by the Australian equivalent of the MoJ as to why a citizen was subjected to one of the most horrific deaths imaginable by one of their contractors. It was a high profile case and one assumes lessons were learnt.

However, now we have learnt of the death of Jimmy Mubenga, while being transported from the UK by the same company, under what appears to be a contract with the UK Borders Agency.  The inquest is till underway but there will be lessons worth considering for all those involved in contracting private security.

From a distance public procurers have been able to talk about the horrors of the Dhaka disaster and the perils of low price sourcing. Jimmy Mubenga's death causes us to look more closely at our own sourcing responsibilities.

A reality check on the market impact of the Dhaka disaster

Hopefully no reader of this blog is remotely in doubt about my abhorrence of the low price/high human cost sourcing strategy pursued by some clothing retailers which contributed to the loss of more than 1,000 lives in Dhaka.(For example, see here, here and here)

But I think we need a reality check as to whether or not "(p)eople will think more carefully about where they spend their money, and the statement they are making".

1. Is there any evidence that those arguing that case were, themselves, 'Primark/Matalan ilk' customers?
2. Is there any evidence that those who would have shopped at 'Primark/Matalan ilk' stores are aware of the Dhaka disaster?
3. Is there any evidence that those 'Primark/Matalan ilk' shoppers have made a connection between their low price purchase and the working conditions of those who produced the clothes?
4. Is there any evidence those who shop at 'Primark/Matalan ilk' stores have felt any pang of conscious over their purchases?
5. Is there any evidence that 'Primark/Matalan ilk' stores have seen any discernible and potential long-term change in sales since the Dhaka disaster?

Personally, I would like to see that evidence before I would believe consumer impact will lead to a change to more responsible and accountable procurement. 

However, loss of sales shouldn't be the sole reason for organisations to 'buy with a soul'. The public shaming of the finance industry doesn't strike me as having led to major changes in bank customers behaviour, yet the finance sector does appear to be making small steps towards 'doing the right thing'.  We need the 'Primark/Matalan ilk' firms to be more concerned about 'doing the right thing' too. But 'doing the right thing' is very subjective - think of all those in the former UK clothing industry who lost their jobs over the last century when decisions were made to shift and source from 'low price countries'.

What did Fallon do?

Less than two weeks ago Michael Fallon gave an undertaking that "[UK Government] will look at what responsibility can be put on retailers" in response to the Dhaka factory tragedy, where it is now thought 800 people will have lost their lives.

The tragedy pricked the conscience of some of the UK public and some of those buyers who appeared to have been pursuing a low price (/high human cost) sourcing strategy. Supplier audits and risk assessments  became a topic of conversation for a few days. Unfortunately, as more domestic stories occupied our news headlines the working conditions in Bangladesh become less topical and the cost of low price clothes, like cheap T-shirts, fades. It does not have the same memory joggers as the daily decisions we make regarding the authenticity of the meat we buy which remind us of the horse meat debacle. Indeed even the Bangladeshi Finance Minister appeared to trivialise the significance of the 800 deaths.    

But Michael Fallon did give an undertaking about responsibility and there is surely an obligation on him to make clear what he actually did do and what the outcome was. Two weeks is quite a long time in politics and the rhetoric changes. But in Bangladesh there are families who will never forget that buyer deadlines contributed to death, maiming and loss of income. To make matters worse we have now learnt of more deaths in another Dhaka factory as a result of a fire with at least eight deaths.

Doesn't this put in context yesterday's blog on low spec uniforms?

Now may be a good time for Michael Fallon and those in the retail industry to let us know what preventative actions they took?

What will Fallon do, what can he do?

'Any Questions' is a great programme on Radio 4. The episode on 26 April (repeated on 27 April) (specifically the section at 11 minutes) was all the more interesting since the panelists were discussing procurement in the context of the Dhaka factory collapse which I discussed earlier today.

Michael Fallon MP, currently, Minister of State for Business and Enterprise, gave an interesting undertaking "that [UK Government] will look at what responsibility can be put on retailers". When pressed, the only clarification he gave as to what that meant was "we'll look at the various codes that they're signing up to and see whether they are sufficiently transparent and whether enough retailers in this country are actually signed up to them and whether there are significant gaps".

Another panelist, Sir Ming Campbell, suggested accurate labelling may be part of the solution, yet we know 'accurate labelling' didn't protect against 'horse meat in the UK food supply chain'.

We also know that the government have not been able to effectively mandate their own spending departments to use centrally set up contracts.

Yet bizarrely Stephen Kelly, in his evidence to PASC, was implying the public sector should look to retail as exemplars!

So what will Fallon do, or more specifically, what can Fallon do?

He can hardly tell those who have just had their benefits cut to buy more expensively.

However, given that it is alleged it was only the need to meet buyer deadlines that caused the workers to be in the factory on Wednesday in spite of the obvious risks, perhaps he could ask UK retailers to demonstrate that they were not culpable through placing undue pressure on supply chains. Could he initiate legislation which would bring about a new criminal offence of supply chain culpable negligence which may well help strengthen political relations? Or could he have the issue addressed through the G20?  I suppose it all depends on whether there's a will!

The voice of the buyer and the voice of the worker

Compare and contrast the following "Save us brother, I beg you brother. I want to live. It's so painful here. I have two little children" said Abdul Hossain while the buyer said "[we are] shocked and deeply saddened".

One is the voice of a victim, Abdul Hossain, who was dead before 6am yesterday.and one is the voice of the buyer who also said it wasn't aware of any problems relating to the structure of the building which collapsed killing in the region of 360 people. Mango, Matalan, Bonmarche, and Primark are among the buyers.

Like all of its international suppliers, one of the buyers claimed, the supplier had been subjected to regular checks on health and saftey, working hours and overtime. The buyer knew that while "there are building regulations in place in Bangladesh but nobody enforces them".

On Tuesday a crack was identified in the wall and the bank staff, who work in the same building, were told not to come into work on the Wednesday. However, factory managers, under the pressure of buyer deadlines, told their workers to work. On the Wednesday many of the factory workers paid a high price for the need to meet the buyer deadlines when the building collapsed.

64 workers in the same town were killed in a similar incident in 2005.

When you look at it like that maybe it's time for a redefinition of procurement risk management and responsible procurement.

Is there a risk of procurement dysfunctionalism on CSR?

Procurement Leaders have just published some findings from their research on the embedding of CSR in procurement. I don't have access to the full report but you can gain a feel through the freely available Executive Summary. The research suggests that 82% of respondents have managed to include CSR in supplier selection and evaluation criteria yet "it barely features in the overall procurement strategy".

The question I want to pose is quite simply: 'Without a procurement policy or procurement strategy commitment, is it right to include CSR in supplier selection and evaluation criteria?'

I truly believe procurement could and should make a major strategic contribution to CSR. Indeed I have been arguing that for 20 years. However, is it appropriate for procurement professionals to pursue CSR objectives without a mandate from the corporate leadership? I don't think it is.

Shareholders, and in the public sector the electorate through their politicians, need to set the priorities of the organisation. The CPO has a role in shaping those objectives and helping the organisation understand what can be achieved through procurement. But if the corporate leadership of the organisation have not said CSR is a strategic priority why should a penny more be spent on it by procurement? Is procurement not acting as a maverick pursuing goals not strategically agreed?

We all recognise that to embed CSR in procurement will be a major challenge and we have to salute those Procurement Leaders the research has identified as embedding CRS in tactical decision making. However, I would argue that CPOs first need to agree a Procurement Policy or Strategy which embraces CSR before embedding it in their decision-making. Of course embedding CSR in short-term decision making means that it can just as easily be dropped from short-term decision making at the whim of a new CPO - excuse the pun but if we want a 'sustainable' approach to sustainable procurement we need to gain the ownership of the C-suite.

Taking another perspective, is it not likely we would be concerned if CPOs sought to embed personal prejudices in procurement decision making, so what's the difference?  

Procurement policy on blacklisted construction workers?

Scottish construction workers protested on Friday about the discovery of a blacklist of 'trouble maker' employees'. I had previously discussed the blacklisting and asked why procurement should interfere if a potential employer opted to bypass 'trouble makers'.

However, what the protest has brought to light is that, when you scratch a little below the surface you find that the definition of a trouble maker, in this case, also relates to some who raised concerns about health and safety. That's a much more serious issue, as not raising concerns about health and safety could lead to liabilities, delays in project completion and serious injury or even death. Silencing the trouble maker in this case amounts to something similar to silencing NHS and other whistle-blowers. Yes, I think we all agree that whistle blowing policies are a good thing.

However, the protesters are calling for a ban on public sector contracts being awarded to firms that have used the blacklists. How on earth would that work? Would it be legal? How would you answer one of your political masters if you were asked to advise? How would you advise your Board if you were in a private sector organisation committed to responsible procurement?

I can't really see any scope for the public sector to avoid using those involved in the blacklisting as it is quite probable that a number of the issues just aren't relevant to the subject matter of the contract. Yet, I do think there is scope for every public sector organisation to consider within the selection criteria the need for a whistle blowers policy. Would that not be a more pragmatic way to solving the problem and yet avoiding the direct risks of related potential increased delivery costs through site closures, etc.. and duty of care?

What would your recommendation be?