Post by account_disabled on Feb 18, 2024 0:38:19 GMT -5
According to The Guardian , many of the world's leading certification standards not only fail to improve the ethical conduct of large corporations, but serve to entrench abusive business practices, a damning new report argues.
Not Fit-For-Purpose study analyzes 40 global voluntary initiatives, including certification standards, labeling and other programs to improve the ethical Middle East Mobile Number List conduct of large corporations, and reveals the dark truth of ethical labels and the importance of addressing these challenges to avoid undermining sustainability efforts.
Ethical labels fall short
So-called ethical labeling, such as the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and Fairtrade International, has long served to help consumers identify products and companies that make a wide variety of social and environmental responsibility claims.
These labels recognize products that meet certain criteria, for example paying a decent wage to workers or committing to certain animal welfare standards. However, they vary greatly in terms of how high ethical expectations really are and how robustly they are verified.
Also known as sustainability standards and certifications, ethical accreditation schemes, eco-labels or ethical supply chain certifications, the study calls into question the effectiveness of these tools in protecting people's human rights.
It's time to think about the truth of sustainable certifications
The 235-page report draws on a decade of research into “multi-stakeholder initiatives,” from certifying food or consumer products as “sustainable,” “fair” or “ethical,” to establishing good practices for Internet companies regarding privacy and freedom of expression online.
And he reflects that although in recent years there has been greater concern about the issue and its expansion, he concludes that in this research the purpose of effectively providing protection against abuse at all stages of the supply chain, the truth of the ethical labels is that they are flawed.
Amelia Evans, executive director of MSI Integrity, the US-based human rights group behind the research, these types of multi-stakeholder initiatives [because they are initiatives created by a combination of engagement between activists and companies] have a complicated relationship with governments, which often interpret its existence as evidence that abuses are being "attended."
In this context, the analysis suggests that instead of using these initiatives to gloss over the situation, governments should recognize the truth of ethical labels, which suggest a signal that there are underlying human rights abuses that need to be addressed and concrete measures taken. about.
Lack of representation of affected communities
According to the research, only 13% of the initiatives analyzed include affected populations in their governing bodies and none of them have a majority of rights holders on their board of directors. Such an imbalance is evident at the complaints stage, with almost a third of initiatives offering no complaints mechanism for workers or other affected parties.
The frequent absence of victims' voices speaks to a broader concern about the use of certification schemes and similar voluntary standards to halt progress on human rights and safeguard the status quo .
«Over time, MSIs [multi-stakeholder initiatives] have been captured and dominated by corporations. So while they may not have been designed to fail, I think they were destined to fail.”
Amelia Evans, CEO of MSI Integrity.
The report also suggests a perceived bias in the attention abuses in different parts of the world receive from certification schemes. According to the report, these schemes appear to pay more attention to abuses committed in countries in the Global South, while overlooking breaches of human rights standards in countries in the Global North.
Consumers should remain alert to unsustainable claims
In light of its criticism, MSI Integrity warns that consumers "cannot trust" the claims made by many ethical labels. Not only do abuses continue to occur, but generic terms such as “fair” and “sustainable” can be misleading.
Sarah Newell, a spokesperson for the US-based Worker-Powered Social Responsibility Network, goes even further, arguing that there are multi-stakeholder efforts to intentionally “hide” worker abuses in multinational supply chains.
Not Fit-For-Purpose study analyzes 40 global voluntary initiatives, including certification standards, labeling and other programs to improve the ethical Middle East Mobile Number List conduct of large corporations, and reveals the dark truth of ethical labels and the importance of addressing these challenges to avoid undermining sustainability efforts.
Ethical labels fall short
So-called ethical labeling, such as the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and Fairtrade International, has long served to help consumers identify products and companies that make a wide variety of social and environmental responsibility claims.
These labels recognize products that meet certain criteria, for example paying a decent wage to workers or committing to certain animal welfare standards. However, they vary greatly in terms of how high ethical expectations really are and how robustly they are verified.
Also known as sustainability standards and certifications, ethical accreditation schemes, eco-labels or ethical supply chain certifications, the study calls into question the effectiveness of these tools in protecting people's human rights.
It's time to think about the truth of sustainable certifications
The 235-page report draws on a decade of research into “multi-stakeholder initiatives,” from certifying food or consumer products as “sustainable,” “fair” or “ethical,” to establishing good practices for Internet companies regarding privacy and freedom of expression online.
And he reflects that although in recent years there has been greater concern about the issue and its expansion, he concludes that in this research the purpose of effectively providing protection against abuse at all stages of the supply chain, the truth of the ethical labels is that they are flawed.
Amelia Evans, executive director of MSI Integrity, the US-based human rights group behind the research, these types of multi-stakeholder initiatives [because they are initiatives created by a combination of engagement between activists and companies] have a complicated relationship with governments, which often interpret its existence as evidence that abuses are being "attended."
In this context, the analysis suggests that instead of using these initiatives to gloss over the situation, governments should recognize the truth of ethical labels, which suggest a signal that there are underlying human rights abuses that need to be addressed and concrete measures taken. about.
Lack of representation of affected communities
According to the research, only 13% of the initiatives analyzed include affected populations in their governing bodies and none of them have a majority of rights holders on their board of directors. Such an imbalance is evident at the complaints stage, with almost a third of initiatives offering no complaints mechanism for workers or other affected parties.
The frequent absence of victims' voices speaks to a broader concern about the use of certification schemes and similar voluntary standards to halt progress on human rights and safeguard the status quo .
«Over time, MSIs [multi-stakeholder initiatives] have been captured and dominated by corporations. So while they may not have been designed to fail, I think they were destined to fail.”
Amelia Evans, CEO of MSI Integrity.
The report also suggests a perceived bias in the attention abuses in different parts of the world receive from certification schemes. According to the report, these schemes appear to pay more attention to abuses committed in countries in the Global South, while overlooking breaches of human rights standards in countries in the Global North.
Consumers should remain alert to unsustainable claims
In light of its criticism, MSI Integrity warns that consumers "cannot trust" the claims made by many ethical labels. Not only do abuses continue to occur, but generic terms such as “fair” and “sustainable” can be misleading.
Sarah Newell, a spokesperson for the US-based Worker-Powered Social Responsibility Network, goes even further, arguing that there are multi-stakeholder efforts to intentionally “hide” worker abuses in multinational supply chains.
