Collaboration & Technology Survey Analysis Pdf

Collaboration and Technology:Analysis of Research

June 2009

Enabling Responsible Supply Chains


Background

► Fair Factories Clearinghouse (FFC) received a grant from the Levi Strauss Foundationto conduct research on collaboration and the role technology can play infacilitating or furthering companies’ collaborative efforts on supply chainpractices.

► FFC devised a survey inquiring about respondents’ perceptions on five key areas:

§ Current Collaboration Practices

§ Collaboration and Role of Technology

§ Drivers & Obstacles to Collaboration

§ Future Aspirations for Collaboration

§ Facilitating Collaboration Through Technology: Options for Consideration

► 101 people from companies (sector with highest response), NGOs, academics,governments, and auditing firms provided input into the survey results

► The FFC then solicited additional company input through individual interviews toclarify which tools will best aid companies in effective collaboration.


► Executive Summary: Key Findings & Conclusions

► Tools for Investment

► Current Collaboration & Obstacles to Collaboration

► Future Aspirations for Collaboration

► Appendix

Overview


Key Findings: Collaboration in General

► Companies that do, highly value their collaboration efforts, particularly sharingaudit results and their participation in Working Groups and MSIs. “In order to movebeyond looking at CSR as risk management and privatized enforcement of labor laws,engagement is crucial”

► Companies say they want to collaborate more, but few invest in a large scaleactivity, and financial resources are not allocated to support prioritizedcollaboration areas.

► There is a high degree of interest in the development of one shared audit, using thesame audit tool, but its adoption is unclear. “The holy grail would be the shared audit:many companies share one audit and the results are shared using technology”

► Companies increasingly want to see collaborative resources being used forremediation, not just identification of issues. ”We need to focus more on issue solvingand remediation rather than issue finding. Resources should be spent in increasing factorycapacity to resolve issues. “We need to shift the focus from auditing to training the factory tomanage their own issues”

► The most challenging collaboration obstacles are attitudinal - lack oftrust/confidence in other companies or auditors, unwillingness to share, concernsabout free riders, inability/unwillingness to accept other’s efforts. “Many companiesbelieve their program is better than any collaborated or shared system”; “I don’t trust that otherbrands are going to follow up in a meaningful way”; “It is unclear whether I can trust anothercompany’s audits”


Key Findings: Technology & Collaboration

► Technology is not a game changer. While it alone will not drive collaboration, itcan be an enabler. Technology cannot overcome attitudinal obstacles tocollaboration, but it can provide transparency into the activities of key actors inthe community (factories, companies and auditors), and identify opportunities forjoint activity.

► Investment and participation are generally low in collaborative technology toolsand/or shared data platforms.

► Technology is currently, and can continue to be, helpful in efficiently collecting,storing, sharing and analyzing data, such as Corrective Action Plans/Remediationplans, auditing findings, monitoring protocols. Additional investment in trend reportson these data would be worthwhile as well. “Technology facilitates data sharing, especiallyacross geography and time zones”

► Where technology can facilitate the identification and execution of joint audits,more resources can be spent on joint remediation. “With a shared audit, companiescan then use resources to jointly work on remediation”

► Companies are looking to technology to improve efficiency of collaborativeefforts. Technology must be user-friendly. It must increase efficiency, be web-based,integrated with Outlook and ensure accurate information sharing. “Technology has tomake collaboration more efficient”

► “Shared data platform fatigue” was listed as an inhibitor. Many commentedthat the overabundance of shared data platforms is complicating collaboration. Oneshared data platform would alleviate duplication across platforms, remove silos ofinformation, and avoid confusion and frustration on which system to use.


Key Findings: Technology Tools

► No one technology tool is a game changer. Companies expressed amazinglyequal interest in all the tools, with a slight preference toward Factory Profiles.

► Launch of collaborative tools is made complicated by distinct needs. Companieswant the tools to reflect their internal programs, which may be incompatible forcollaboration. The tools will need to be flexible and configurable to support bothneeds.

► Companies want a tool to track information about their own vs. other auditingpractices, with simple to use reports on activity, including dashboards onperformance

► Communication tools and social networking tools (blogs, etc) would be useful toshare best practices

► Universally companies want trend analysis from various sources of data.

► With few exceptions, companies felt technology tools should be free, or at a lowcost with a pay-to-use model.


Conclusions for FFC

• Technology can increase transparency: Technology cannot overcome the attitudinalissues and risk aversion that inhibit collaboration, but should increase transparency,which can help build trust, particularly toward auditors and other companies

• Data Sharing is Pivotal to Collaboration: FFC should continue to provide and improvean effective and easy-to-use platform for data sharing of audit results, scores andremediation activities. Consider increasing the potential to share or participate inremedial activity.

• Profiles will increase transparency and, therefore, build trust: FFC can increasetransparency by pursuing the concept of Profiles, providing increased information aboutFactories and Companies, derived from all actors in the supply chain

• Technology can facilitate future activity: FFC will facilitate future shared audits ortrainings, such as Matchmaking and Shared Calendar

• Shared Calendar is desirable: Everyone in the Social Compliance community canbenefit from a centralized calendar outlining upcoming trainings, meetings, andconferences. This can be hosted on the FFC website.

• Companies are unwilling/unable to pay for the tools: Foundation and/or otherfunding sources will need to be identified to develop tools.

• Work with similar organizations: Industry needs the FFC to seek out other sharedplatform providers to assess partnership and collaborative program opportunities.






► Appendix

Overview


Factory Profiles - How has factoryperformed? Measures could include:

Company Profiles - CompanyPhilosophy, Strategies, Tools, such as:

Profiles can help shed light on the performance and activityof factories, companies and auditors

► Code of conduct

► Audit methodology

► Compliance benchmarks

► Threshold and zero-tolerance issues

► Remedial strategies

► Auditor preferences

► Number of Audits conducted

► Number / type of non-compliances found,pending remediation and remediated

► Trainings and certifications received

► Management practices/Trainings

► Progress over time

Auditor Profiles - Companies could increasetheir knowledge about auditors, including:

► Profile of audit firm (how many years in business, clients, etc.)

► Profile/CV of auditors (skills, knowledge, experience, etc.)

► Audit methodology

► Standard/Code used

► Reviews from clients (a la “Yelp”)


Profiles - Input Received

► Factory profiles received almost universal support

§ The most popular idea was to release aggregated performance indicators onfactories derived from various sources (within and outside FFC).

§ Keen interest also found in factories submitting data on their compliance history,goals, performance and progress.

► Auditor profiles seen with merit, but concerns on timing

§ This seen as a means of gaining visibility on other auditors used by companies,but not as an internal tool (many seemed to feel they have chosen their auditingfirms with their own due diligence).

§ Many prefer to wait until the Social Auditor Standards project is finished.

► Company profiles least popular, but still seen as interesting.

§ Many felt company profile data already being captured and available, but weredraw to the idea of filling out only one very comprehensive information form andhaving that readily available.


Matchmaking uses technology to identify opportunities andto create shared audits and remediation activity with like-minded companies

Matchmaking of Factory Activity Company Matchmaking

► Using information from CompanyProfiles (see previous page), can matchcompanies on the basis of:

§ Codes components

§ Zero tolerance & Threshold issues

§ Compliance benchmarks

§ Audit methodology

§ Involvement in Joint Codes, etc(FLA, ETI, etc)

§ Preferred auditors

§ Company Values

► Can be done in conjunction with auditmatching

► One, comprehensive form can be usedfor all company inquiries

► Companies would be matched withother brands planning an audit in thesame facility in an upcoming windowof time

► Can include remedial activity in afacility for joint action

► Alerts would also be sent re:identified opportunities for jointactivity (shared factories with noaudits, or pending remediationverification, etc.)

► Can specify if audit /remediation willbe performed by company or byexternal auditor

► Can also include past audits, forcomparison purposes

► May utilize a shared calendar as well,to include activities such as trainings


Matchmaking - Input Received

► Matchmaking on opportunities for joint activity in audits and remediationwas seen as having best impact

§ Almost universal interest in automatic matching of other companies sourcing fromtheir factories

§ Many sought system identification with alerts on audit opportunities (i.e., no auditfrom either company, planned audits in same time period) or remediationopportunities (i.e., CAPs past deadlines needing verification)

§ Support for audit subscriptions, where companies could post that it is seeking ajoint audit, and system matches them with others seeking an audit as well

§ It was pointed out that coupling this function with a calendar function would makeshared audits more efficient

§ Many felt this would be most helpful in additional areas of the supply chain (suchas licensees, secondary suppliers, raw material suppliers)

§ Concerns raised on matchining on various aliases of suppliers, part. in China

► Company matchmaking was seen as too piece meal to work.

§ Most companies felt they should find the right collaboration partners themselves,based on company profiles, as well as other information they have on the entiretyof the program.


Audits Factory Activity

Shared Calendar could allow a window into upcoming audits,remedial activity, and capacity building programs

► Master calendar to record, store andshare across companies key factoryactivity, such as:

§ Meetings

§ Root-cause analysis

§ Trainings

► Audit schedule across companies, alsoidentifying overlap

► Audit scheduling tool to request anddeploy joint audits with externalauditing firms / auditors

Social Compliance Activities

► Master, centralized calendar to record,store and share - and invite participationin - collaborative activity, such as:

§ Projects

§ Trainings

§ Conferences and Meetings


Shared Calendar - Input Received

► Companies want a centralized calendar for shared audits, but fear maintenance

§ Support for an audit scheduling calendar that matches planned audits in “windowsof time” for shared facilities (linked to factory matching program)

§ Many fear that it would be very high maintenance, and wonder how to maintain anexternal audit scheduling calendar - APIs would be necessary

► Universal support for shared calendar listing all social compliance functions

§ FFC was asked to support a centralized calendar for upcoming conferences,webcasts, trainings, and meetings, with links to vendors for additional information






► Appendix

Overview


“In order to move beyond looking at CSR as risk management and privatizedenforcement of labor laws, engagement is crucial.”

“Collaboration in factories between the brands helps reduce audit fatigueand resources for both the factory and the brands. It also helps the brands

focus on key issues in the factory, by using better business leverage.”“Collaboration needs to get more targeted and outcomes-oriented. “

Most popular of CURRENT Forms ofFormal Collaboration

Would like to collaborate morein the FUTURE

Formal Collaborations center around Joint Codes of Conductand Multi-Stakeholder Initiatives, and all are generally useful.

►

► Joint Projects in a specific geographywith other brands (i.e., BSR’s BeyondMonitoring, Jo-In, MFA Forum)

► Multi-Stakeholder Initiatives (i.e.,Better Work, GSCP, MFA Forum, WRAP,SAI)

► Shared Data Platforms (i.e., FFC, Sedex)

► Joint Codes of Conduct

► Joint Projects in a specificgeography with other brands

► Multi-Stakeholder Initiatives

► Company program certificationsystem


Chart average values displayed


“Collaborative relationships arebased on trust. I need to believe

in the efforts of companies Iwork with.”

Most useful forms of CURRENTInformal Collaboration

Would like to collaborate more in theFUTURE

► Industry Working Group (i.e., BSR,EICC, PSCI, ICTI, AAFA, etc)

► Ask advice from other brand(s) onspecific compliance or remediationissue(s)

► Conduct trainings together with otherbrands

► Conduct joint audits with othercompanies

► Conduct joint remediation with othercompanies

Companies rely heavily on informal collaboration;particularly Industry Groups and advice from trusted brands

►

► Conduct trainings together with otherbrands

► Worker grievance channels through ajoint service


Companies are currently collaborating on Labor, Environmentand Health & Safety Issues


“Sharing speeds up learning.”“Sharing audit results with other companies

increases our own leverage.”

Companies are Sharing:

Companies are sharing their Audit Reports with othercompanies, and that garners the most impact.

►

► Factory lists

► Audits (results)

► Remediation / CAP reports

► Other tools (i.e., audit tools, compliancebenchmarks, specific policies, etc.)

Over half of the companies thoughtthat sharing Audit Results was the

most useful for their company.


Companies collaborate with those who are similar to them,or with those they trust


Most companies do not allocate $$ investments specifically forcollaboration, nor do they track where do invest or ROI

The (relatively) few companies who responded to this question indicated they’respending between $10K - $50K on Collaboration and Less than one FTE, anddid not measure investment return or savings as a result of collaboration


Obstacles to collaboration are attitudinal: lack of trust in othercompanies and auditors - combined with risk aversion


Technology listed as overcoming barriers, but mostly otherthings are needed






► Appendix

Overview


In the future, respondents would like to see, above all else,collaborative trainings with other brands

Types of Desired Collaboration Cited Types of Training Cited:

► Joint capacity building andtraining with other brands

► One monitor standard

► Joint audit tool to share audits

► Joint management of licensees

► Joint approaches to remediationsolutions and timelines

► Management systems

► Root cause analysis

► Remediation

► Grievance mechanisms

► Cultural differences training

► Regional trainings

► Labor, empowerment and life skills


Respondents did not have strong preferences on where theywould invest capital, with a slight emphasis on joint trainingand remediation


Data to be shared throughtechnology

Other ways technology can aidcollaboration

In the future, technology can be most helpful in efficientlycollecting, storing and sharing data

►

► E-training

► Facilitating meetings with other brands

► Corrective ActionPlans/Remediation plans

► Audit findings

► Monitoring protocols

► Statistics on what the major problemsare, sliceable by region, product type,and graphs on trends for the majorviolations

► Shared factories

► Shared training opportunities

► Best practices

Key points

► Ensure it will interface well with Outlookto make it practical to use

► Ensure confidentiality

► Allow anonymity

► Match names (particularly for China)

► Factory audits should be sortable bydate and who performed the audit


Technology is essential tocollaboration Challenges Remain

72% believe that technology aids them in their collaborationefforts

►

► Facilitates data sharing, especiallyacross geographies and time zones

► Allows for scaling up of individualefforts

► Eases communications with everyone:factories, workers, other companies,stakeholders

► Simplifies access

► Promotes opportunity

► The holy grail would be the sharedaudit: many companies share oneaudit and the results are shared usingtechnology. Companies can then useresources to jointly work onremediation

► Disparity in software and databasescreate challenges

► Need to overcome the risk aversion thatmany companies still have abouttechnological collaboration

“Technology has the capacity to trulychange the face of collaboration, and is

absolutely essential in order forcompanies to fully collaborate.”


Besides improving working conditions, respondents hope toreduce costs and increase efficiency through collaboration

§ Improved working conditions

§ Enhanced performance/effectiveness

§ Shared expertise

§ Elimination of redundancy, enhanced efficiency

§ Reduced costs

Least important:

§ Access to tools

§ Easier vendor implementation

What do you hope to achieve through collaboration?


Shared e-learning platform could provide opportunities forscaling joint trainings for suppliers

► Companies are seeking ways to scale-up the reach of their suppliertrainings through technology

► E-Learning could provide opportunities to deliver trainings to moresuppliers, at less cost, and for multiple companies

► Sharing platform to share and access training materials and tools forcollective use would also be useful

► Shared calendar can provide opportunities to ‘piggy-back’ with othercompanies on their training opportunities.


In addition to technology, respondents seek increasedauditing credibility & standardization, and a clear ROI






► Appendix

Overview


76% of Respondents were from Companies; Largely inConsumer Products and Retailers


Demographic information about survey respondents

► 101 people provided input into the survey

► Most who company respondents were in the CSR or Social Compliancefunction

§ 20% were from Environmental Compliance and Supply Chain

► Most had more than 2 years experience in the field; 25% with over 10years experience.

► Only those from companies were asked to complete the entire survey asthe questions were geared toward their experience

Collaboration & Technology Survey Analysis Pdf

Documents

Transcript of Collaboration & Technology Survey Analysis Pdf