Monday, 26 September 2011

PIU blog post, number 2!

Following the success of my first PIU blog post, I decided to have a go at another. This topic was something entirely new to me, so go easy! Enjoy!


  • 6
  • SEP
  • 2011
Who is responsible for suppliers' ethical standards?
A recent PIU blog post on Apple's recent supply chain mishap written by my colleague Maggie Slowik caused quite a furore last week when blog contributors disagreed over who should take responsibility for suppliers' ethical issues. One standpoint was that these companies are big enough to accept social responsibility throughout the supply chain. Whereas another argument was that governments should be held liable as it is their responsibility to implement regulations to control manufacturers. So, are companies 100% responsible for their supply chain blunders?

First, it is important to question why large companies place factories in and use suppliers in developing countries. Lax environmental standards and low rates of pay, combined with lower health and safety standards make these countries extremely attractive to companies looking to save money in production costs. But, why do the governments of low-cost countries allow these slack standards to stand? The answer is simple - the system also saves them money and resources. Implementing regulations to improve health, safety and environmental standards, as well as legislation to introduce modest rates of pay is a costly business. Therefore, should companies from developed nations take responsibility to improve the working standards in developing countries?

Some would argue that companies that conduct business with or in developing countries have a duty to ensure that their products and services are produced in an ethical way. In recent years brands including Gap, Nike and Apple have come under the spotlight for the discovery of poor ethical standards in their supply chain. All three brands claimed that they were unaware that their factories were breaking ethical working rules. Since the discoveries, Nike and Gap have pledged to ensure that their factories improve their conditions and if not, the companies stated that they would withdraw from the area. Despite these assertions, discoveries like these can be extremely damaging for a brand's image, and companies need to question whether buying products and services at the lowest possible cost is worth the risk if their entire brand image could be destroyed.

The International Labour Organisation helps to establish international labour standards, although it cannot dictate a global base wage. It has been suggested that a global labour law should be introduced to address the issue. Similarly, it has been proposed that governments take total responsibility for monitoring manufacturing in their countries. This could include capping the number of hours worked, introducing health and safety regulations, introducing a base wage and ensuring a good level of environmental standards. Some developing countries are already beginning to introduce regulations to improve their working standards. This is particularly evident in countries like China, which would like to be considered as a growing economic leader.

Whether a company is responsible for ensuring ethical working practices or whether a government is accountable for working standards is a hot topic of debate. However, the issue isn't completely black and white, and placing the responsibility entirely on one side would lead to many 'ifs and buts'. In an ideal world, companies would produce their goods in a wholly ethical way and poor working standards and inequality would be eradicated, but unfortunately we do not yet live in an ideal world.

Friday, 23 September 2011

PIU blog post!

So my blogging has been pretty sparse recently, but I have been very busy with my new job. Part of my job is to write blogs, pretty difficult seeing as when I started I knew diddly squat about procurement! After a very steep learning curve, my first company blog was posted on Wednesday. I've attached it below so you can all have a look! Enjoy!


  • 21
  • SEP
  • 2011

Mexico's supply chain - a risky business

Mexico's supply chain - a risky business
Another day, another horrific story to come from Mexico. Yesterday a major road in the state of Veracruz on the eastern coast of Mexico was blocked by Mexican gunmen and 35 of their victims' bodies. Just last month the country saw its first direct attack upon innocent people when members of a drug cartel set alight a casino in the northern city of Monterrey. These are just some of many incidents connected to the drug war that has ravaged the country since 2006. But, what has this to do with procurement?

As mentioned in a recent blog post by Pasquale Gioia, Mexico's geographical location places it in a logical position to engage with the US supply chain. This, combined with lower labour and production costs of certain materials and goods, as well as cheaper transportation fees, makes Mexico a purchasing haven for certain US industries. However, as the drug war plagues the country, many foreign companies are weighing up the risks associated with their investment plans in Mexico. The increasing number of battles between drug traffickers and the Mexican army, which often take place on busy highways, are exposing foreign companies to the risk of employee kidnappings, cargo thefts and even death.

Cars, steel, aluminium, copper and industrial chemicals have become cargo thiefs' choice targets, costing companies millions of dollars every year. With all these risks to weigh up, it is no surprise to discover that according to JP Morgan, in 2010 Mexico lost $4 billion dollars in foreign investment due to drug-related violence.

The US is not only the foreign supply chain that is feeling the effect of Mexico's drug war. The country's own supply chain has fallen victim to its internal problems. The exportation and cost of Mexican limes and avocados have become increasingly more expensive as farmers are paying drug cartel members to ensure the safe delivery of their produce. Despite this, goods trucks are still being attacked. This, combined with increased border checks due to the rise in drug smuggling to the US, has meant that delivery takes longer and produce is often not delivered fresh.

Regardless of the increased risk, many foreign companies insist that they will continue negotiations with Mexican companies and this is most likely due to extremely low labour costs, fewer environmental standards with which to comply and the convenience of the location.

The question is: will the Mexican supply chain continue to support itself if the drug war continues?