« June 2007 | Main | August 2007 »

Thank you to the readers of the blog!

Wow!  It has been almost a year since we first started this blog and the response to it has been tremendous.  We have received many encouraging comments from all over and we are very proud to have been linked by various other blogs focused on issues of corporate social responsibility.

So this is just a short note to say "thanks" to the readers of the blog, "double thanks" to those who have subscribed to the blog, and "thanks much" to the other blogs and websites that have linked to us.  The continued support is greatly appreciated!

Also, long time visitors will notice that we have a new poll asking the question "how should governments promote corporate responsibility?"  Given the law that was recently passed by Indonesia law makers and the continuing debates around the globe about whether or not to mandate corporate responsibility, we thought it was a timely question to ask.  We'll share the poll results with you at the end of August.

As well, you will notice something new on the sidebar called "opinmind".  In about 24 hour's time, quotable quotes from our blog will start appearing in that space.  Should a quote catch your eye, just click it and you will be brought to the blog entry the quote was taken from.  It's a nice way to highlight the great writing on the blog and give readers another way to access previous blog entries.

Happy reading!

UPDATE: We've added one more feature to the blog.  By clicking the "Bookmark" button you can now add a link to the blog onto your Google or Yahoo! toolbar, or on sites like Digg or Del.icio.us!

Bridging the Gap between Voluntary and Legal: Indonesia's New CSR Law

Indonesia has further muddied the waters regarding whether CSR is a legal or a purely voluntary initiative.  On July 20, the country incorporated a CSR requirement into its company law.  CSR Asia issued a critique of the law in its latest newsletter, and perhaps predictably, there are many concerns. 

The first concern is with coverage.  The requirement applies only to companies “involved in ‘the exploitation of natural resources,’” which evidently excludes the financial sector.  The author points out that this exclusion is problematic because the financial sector plays a pivotal role in facilitating CSR.  She suggests that this omission indicates the “law is not about CSR but is simply mandating philanthropy.” 

The second concern is functional.  The law is so general that it is unclear how it will be implemented.  For instance, the author says we will have to wait for further regulations before we know what definitions of CSR and natural resources the law espouses, how it will be implemented, and to whom it applies exactly.

The final concern the author refers to is the possibility that the measure will act as or be seen as a CSR tax that could deter foreign investment.  In other words, according to an Indonesian Business Links statement, “This is similar to additional tax… that is levied from the net profit of a limited liability company.” 

Has Indonesia got it right, the author asks?  She suggests that we won’t know until the regulations come out, but she thinks this law is “part of a global trend that governments are looking to legislate for CSR.”  I’m not sure I agree with her latter assertion.  The EU has said pretty firmly that CSR should remain a voluntary initiative, so there shouldn’t be any imminent EU legislation in this area. 

Second, although the U.S. proposed anti-sweatshop legislation, it does not appear remotely likely to pass, and if it did, it would serve protectionist purposes far more than CSR purposes.  So what might appear to be CSR legislation is sometimes, in effect, something completely different.

Finally, as the article points out, countries like France and Malaysia have CSR reporting legislation.  Moreover, the UK has ratified a corporate homicide bill that would make UK businesses more liable and accountable for accidents at work.  However, these pieces of legislation are limited to single legal issues, respectively, pensions law and criminal and tort law; they do not address CSR in general.  The Indonesian law seems to be more concept-based, targeting CSR as a whole.  If there is the kind of trend the author suggests, it is far more limited in scope than the Indonesian concept-based approach.

It will be interesting to see how the Indonesian CSR law pans out, but there are a lot of contextual and substantive reasons to be skeptical of its effect.  Perhaps it greatest contribution will be symbolic, closing the gap between legal and voluntary in the realm of CSR.

DHS Releases New Security Strategy

In accordance with the SAFE Port Act, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) released its Strategy to Enhance International Supply Chain Security this week. This report provides an overview of how initiatives such as C-TPAT, the Container Security Initiative, and the Secure Freight Initiative form part of a multi-layered effort to increase the security of the international supply chain. This strategy defines the roles of various governmental agencies, including Customs and Border Protection, Department of Energy, and the US Coast Guard and how they work in conjunction in order to prevent, and potentially recuperate from, an attack.

Additionally, DHS formulated the strategy to provide protocol for damage assessments of the international supply chain, and act as a guidebook for the reestablishment of commerce and trade in the event of a terrorist attack at a major U.S. port.This strategy seeks to avoid an automatic shutdown of all the nation’s ports in response to a terrorist incident by creating a chain of command to quickly restore the flow of commodities and goods after a terrorist incident (such as crude oil, clothing, car parts and medical supplies). In addition to ensuring the flow of goods, the strategy categorizes the types of goods and cargo that will receive top priority at U.S. ports based on public health, national security and economic needs.


Click on the below link for a downloadable copy of the report.

http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/plcy-internationalsupplychainsecuritystrategy.pdf

(content researched and contributed by Andrew Hurley)

Senate passes bill requiring 100% container scanning

A bill requiring 100% screening of US bound containers for nuclear and radiological substances was passed by the Senate last night, and is expected to be passed by the House today. While the White House has criticized this requirement on a number of occasions, it has not yet expressed an intent to veto the bill. The radiation scanning requirement deadline is for 2012, but allows DHS to delay implementation by two year increments. The bill also requires the following:

  • 100% inspection of air cargo carried on passenger aircraft by the end of 2009.
  • 100% of all inbound ocean containers will undergo radiological scanning within 5 years. Currently DHS has established the Secure Freight Initiative as a pilot project for scanning US bound containers at six ports overseas in Pakistan, Oman, Singapore, the UK, Korea and Honduras.

There are significant questions as to how the program will be rolled out, especially regarding the implementation of scanning equipment in hundreds of overseas ports, the efficacy of the scanning technology, which parties are responsible for purchasing the equipment and the impact on the flow of goods to the US. As developments occur, CSCC will continue to update readers about developments along with analysis on the issue.

For further information, click on these links for extended articles:

1. Full text of the bill: http://www.speaker.gov/pdf/HR1.pdf

2. Congressional Quarterly article: http://homeland.cq.com/hs/display.do?docid=2558983&sourcetype=31&binderName=

3. AP article: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070727/ap_on_go_co/homeland_security

China's Growing Counterfeit Dilemma

At CSCC, we have been watching the continuing saga on counterfeit foodstuffs coming out of China.  The country has always been known for counterfeit “Channel” and “LW” apparel and leather goods as well as pirated DVDs of American blockbuster movies.  But can you believe that even edible products have been given that same counterfeit treatment?

For years reports had come out of China about contaminated and/or counterfeit foodstuffs.  For example, in late 2003, soy sauce made out of human hair collected from the floors of barber shops and salons was discovered.  In April 2004, global news reports revealed a fake baby formula scandal that caused the deaths of as many as 200 babies.  But at the time, such incidents affected only consumers in China and those of us in developed countries just shrugged and said, “Gee, I’m glad those sorts of things don’t happen here.” 

After all, in the US, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) screens products that enter our food supply, and presumably other developed nations had similar government agencies and procedures to keep these counterfeit products out.

How quickly our naïve notions crashed once American pets began to fall ill and die and counterfeit toothpaste forced American consumers to second guess the trust they had placed in some American brands.

So what can we do about this issue?

As consumers, we can embrace the idea of buying local.  This is a movement that has already taken root among environmentally conscious consumers eager to reduce the carbon emissions associated with transporting food from distant farms to local grocery outlets.  So in addition to the assurance we get from buying foodstuffs that we know have met minimum FDA standards in its handling, manufacture, and claims, we can get satisfaction in knowing we are supporting the local economy and doing our part for the environment also.

As businesses that source foodstuffs, drugs, and cosmetics from China or anywhere else, more rigorous monitoring of the supply chain is necessary, as well as educating supply chain partners about FDA standards and reducing price pressures on suppliers so they don’t feel the need to cut corners on ingredients and safe manufacturing processes (full disclosure: Shuster Laboratories, a provider of food safety and development services, is a sister company to CSCC).  The FDA cannot realistically inspect every container of foodstuffs that crosses the border into the US and the Chinese government has repeatedly shown it has limited enforcement capacity to control the many thousands of factories that exist in the country.  Therefore, much of the “policing” will have to be done by the brands and retailers that have their reputations on the line.

On the part of the US government, the FDA has asked for almost $500M in funding for its Foods Programs in 2008, which will include increased enforcement capacity relating to unsafe foods, drugs, and cosmetics.

As for the Chinese government’s response, purging officials from its food and drug agency is a start, although execution of the agency’s officials is not the most uncontroversial way to go about it.  But it will be interesting to see how the government will increase its enforcement capacity and prevent future incidents of corruption within the agency’s ranks.  Beijing needs to take more decisive action than laying about blame and executing people to keep food and cosmetics manufacturing investment within its borders.

Being in the auditing business, CSCC has seen an interesting trend in recent years where brands and retailers are again opting to source apparel and other consumer goods domestically.  We can only speculate as to the reasons, but quality control and the demand for faster concept-to-market pressures are likely the main impetus for this trend.  But unlike the apparel industry, counterfeit foodstuffs and drugs carry a very real risk of illness or death of American consumers --  simply too high a risk for American brands and retailers to bear.  The continuation of such uncertain circumstances in China for any length of time will force companies to bring the manufacture of such items back to American soil where quality can be controlled more closely and corruption is less rampant.

-------------

June Ip is the Manager of Corporate Communications for CSCC.  She is an adventurous eater, having eaten such delicacies as chocolate-covered grasshoppers, fried ants, and snake soup during her travels.  She has not, however, knowingly consumed hair soy sauce nor would she be interested in doing so.

EU launches Supply Chain Security program

On July 1, 2007, all 27 Members of the EU will be accepting applications for the accreditation program entitled Authorised Economic Operator (AEO).  The AEO certificate is available to any EU-based economic operator whose activities are covered by customs legislation: manufacturers, exporters, forwarders, customs agents, carriers and importers are all eligible.   Applications for AEO status will be handled by the customs authority of the applicant’s country (i.e. British importers will apply to British Customs authorities, Dutch forwarders will apply to Dutch authorities, etc.).

There are three different types of AEO certificates available: AEO-Customs Simplifications, AEO-Security and Safety or a combination of both (simplifications/security and safety).  Depending on the company’s operations, the applicants will select the level of AEO certification they wish to obtain (i.e. importers apply as importers, forwarders apply as forwarders).

This supply chain compliance program encourages companies to increase their security standards in exchange for customs-based incentives.  The benefits of obtaining an AEO certificate include the following: fewer physical and document based controls, less data for pre-arrival/departure information and priority treatment at ports of entry.  These security standards are closely aligned with the International Organization of Standardization’s (ISO) published manuals, ISO/PAS 28001 and ISO 9001.  The goal of these standards is to establish adequate levels of security within the areas of the international supply chain which the company controls.  Physical security, logistical processes, storage and loading of goods and personal security are some of the areas addressed by these standards.

Approval for AEO status will be based on each company’s previous record of compliance with customs requirements, accounting and logistical system, financial solvency and security and safety requirements. Although applications are currently accepted as of July 1st, the AEO program will officially commence on January 1, 2008.  Customs Administrations will have 120 days from the date of receipt to process applications.  However, during a transitional period of 24 months starting from 1 January 2008 the period for processing applications will be extended to 300 days.

For more information, contact Nick Allen at nallen@intlcompliance.com. (content researched and contributed by Andrew Hurley).  

DHS selects CSCC/STR as an approved C-TPAT Validator

US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has selected CSCC/STR as an approved Third Party C-TPAT Validator. As part of a 1-year pilot program, CSCC/STR has been certified to conduct supply chain validations for the Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (C-TPAT) in China. C-TPAT partners who have been identified by CBP as being eligible for this program will be contacted shortly. If your company is one of the identified C-TPAT partners and you would like to obtain information about the services CSCC/STR can offer you, email Nicholas Allen at nallen@intlcompliance.net or call (201) 792-7540.

China’s New Employment Contract Law

What some are calling the most important change in Chinese labor law in the last decade, the new employment contract law for China, is finally here. China’s legislature passed the law last Friday, June 29, 2007, after two years in the making.

The full text of the law has not yet been released, so no one knows for sure how it differs from the previous drafts. The Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress did provide a summary of the requirements, however, and according to the summary, we can expect to see the following from the new law:

Mandatory Labor Contracts
A main feature of the contract law is to require contracts for all workers, including migrant workers, to be signed within one month of hire. The goal is to provide broader protections to workers and make more workers, such as migrants and temporary workers, eligible for benefits. Even workers hired through labor agencies are to be given the same protection and benefits as permanent workers.

In theory, employers will not be able to abuse workers through “irregular” employment because (i) fixed-term contracts will become permanent open-term contracts once a fixed-term contract is renewed twice (or after it is completed; there are conflicting reports at this point), and (ii) if employers fail to sign a contract with an employer within the first year, it will be assumed that an open-term contract is in place.

Forced Labor
The law reportedly prohibits mandatory overtime. It also allows employees to resign without notice if they are compelled to work against their will.

Collective Bargaining
The new law reportedly strengthens the communist-party union by empowering company-based branches of the ACFTU to bargain with employers over salaries, bonuses, and other benefits for workers. In addition, companies must “consult” the union for any planned layoffs. However, the union cannot block layoffs, as had been proposed in earlier drafts of the law.

It is this part especially that worries some foreign company executives, who anticipate that labor relations will be greatly complicated by this development. In addition, some companies anticipate increased labor costs and loss of flexibility.

“It will be more difficult to run a company here,” says Andreas Lauffs, a lawyer at Baker & McKenzie in China.

These are the available details to date on the new law. I’ll keep my eyes open for the full text for further review when it is released.

Critics are pessimistic
As for the implications of this new law, critics argue that without enforcement of the law, workers will see no benefits from the new legislation. The onus may be on the ACFTU to begin to play a more active role in protecting worker rights. I discuss the enforcement aspect in more detail in my Ethical Corp column.

Your email address:


Powered by FeedBlitz

AddThis Social Bookmark Button