Shopping for a better world - whether supply chain transparency can assure clarity within the pursuit of goods untainted by intolerable practices
(2017) LAGM01 20171Department of Law
- Abstract
- As legislators in recent years have adopted regulations demanding companies to disclose information on their supply chains, a new chapter of corporate transparency has been opened. However, what power such regulations have to initiate a change of corporate behaviour is questionable. In this thesis the most topical of the recently adopted supply chain transparency and due diligence regulations, are assessed concerning what power they have to initiate change and assure clarity in regards the origin of product manufactured by the affected companies. Included in the discourse are the UK Modern Slavery Act, the California Transparency in Supply Chains Act, the Dodd-Frank Act Section 1502, EU directive 14/95/EU on Non-Financial Reporting and the... (More)
- As legislators in recent years have adopted regulations demanding companies to disclose information on their supply chains, a new chapter of corporate transparency has been opened. However, what power such regulations have to initiate a change of corporate behaviour is questionable. In this thesis the most topical of the recently adopted supply chain transparency and due diligence regulations, are assessed concerning what power they have to initiate change and assure clarity in regards the origin of product manufactured by the affected companies. Included in the discourse are the UK Modern Slavery Act, the California Transparency in Supply Chains Act, the Dodd-Frank Act Section 1502, EU directive 14/95/EU on Non-Financial Reporting and the French Law on a Corporate Duty of Vigilance. In common for all of these supply chain regulations is a dependency on society to assess the new information brought to light and react by favouring the companies that comply well with the regulations and exercise due diligence. However, this cornerstone is a heavy responsibility placed on society. Many factors affect whether or not stakeholders are able to reward the better performing companies such as if the information made available is comprehensive and assessable or whether or not third-party audits effectively can assist consumers in distinguishing better performing companies and their products.
In this thesis the case of Kaksy v. Nike is assessed as well as the sustainability label Fairtrade, which both exemplify a well-motivated scepticism towards corporate sustainability claims. These examples are moreover assessed from the perspective of unfair commercial practices in regards to sustainability commitments. As long as consumers aren’t able to thoroughly evaluate companies concerning their human rights related practices, they have little power to react to the new information brought to light. The early stage of supply chain-related regulations and such regulations ability to assure a supply of products untainted by intolerable practice is targeted in this thesis, as well as the question of the various obstacles posed that can obstruct the consumer’s ability to make humane and sustainable consumption choices. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/8908784
- author
- Westöö, Helena LU
- supervisor
-
- Radu Mares LU
- organization
- course
- LAGM01 20171
- year
- 2017
- type
- H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
- subject
- keywords
- public international law, business and human rights
- language
- English
- id
- 8908784
- date added to LUP
- 2017-08-11 17:28:19
- date last changed
- 2017-08-11 17:28:19
@misc{8908784,
abstract = {{As legislators in recent years have adopted regulations demanding companies to disclose information on their supply chains, a new chapter of corporate transparency has been opened. However, what power such regulations have to initiate a change of corporate behaviour is questionable. In this thesis the most topical of the recently adopted supply chain transparency and due diligence regulations, are assessed concerning what power they have to initiate change and assure clarity in regards the origin of product manufactured by the affected companies. Included in the discourse are the UK Modern Slavery Act, the California Transparency in Supply Chains Act, the Dodd-Frank Act Section 1502, EU directive 14/95/EU on Non-Financial Reporting and the French Law on a Corporate Duty of Vigilance. In common for all of these supply chain regulations is a dependency on society to assess the new information brought to light and react by favouring the companies that comply well with the regulations and exercise due diligence. However, this cornerstone is a heavy responsibility placed on society. Many factors affect whether or not stakeholders are able to reward the better performing companies such as if the information made available is comprehensive and assessable or whether or not third-party audits effectively can assist consumers in distinguishing better performing companies and their products.
In this thesis the case of Kaksy v. Nike is assessed as well as the sustainability label Fairtrade, which both exemplify a well-motivated scepticism towards corporate sustainability claims. These examples are moreover assessed from the perspective of unfair commercial practices in regards to sustainability commitments. As long as consumers aren’t able to thoroughly evaluate companies concerning their human rights related practices, they have little power to react to the new information brought to light. The early stage of supply chain-related regulations and such regulations ability to assure a supply of products untainted by intolerable practice is targeted in this thesis, as well as the question of the various obstacles posed that can obstruct the consumer’s ability to make humane and sustainable consumption choices.}},
author = {{Westöö, Helena}},
language = {{eng}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Shopping for a better world - whether supply chain transparency can assure clarity within the pursuit of goods untainted by intolerable practices}},
year = {{2017}},
}