DOCSLIB.ORG

The Fair Labor Association the Syngenta Project Report 2007-2008

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Fair Labor Association the Syngenta Project Report 2007-2008 FLA SYNGENTA PROJECT REPORT 2007 - 2008 THE FAIR LABOR ASSOCIATION THE SYNGENTA PROJECT REPORT 2007-2008 MONITORING THE AGRICULTURE SECTOR Syngenta sponsored child to school poster on the wall of a local school REPORT PREPARED BY RICHA MITTAL Page 1 FLA SYNGENTA PROJECT REPORT 2007 - 2008 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY……………………………………………………3 II. BACKGROUND…………………………….………………………………..4 III. KEY EVENTS……………………………………………………….………6 IV. FLA INDEPENDENT EXTERNAL MONITORING…………………….7 • FINDINGS…………………………………………………………………..9 V. HIGHLIGHTS FOR REMEDIATION………………………………..……11 VI. KEY LEARNINGS………..………………………………………………...11 VII. SYNGENTA AND FLA OBLIGATION OF COMPANIES…...……….12 VIII. FURTHER RECOMMENDATION……………………..……………...15 IX. REFERENCES……………………………………………………………..15 Page 2 FLA SYNGENTA PROJECT REPORT 2007 - 2008 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The FLA began a pilot project in the agriculture sector in 2004 when Syngenta Seeds Inc. a Swiss agro-business company approached the FLA to help them monitor working conditions in their Indian hybrid cotton seed supply chain. Though the project was initiated in the cotton seed sector, Syngenta sold its global cotton seed business in 2005. The FLA and Syngenta continued the project in the hybrid vegetable seed sector, beginning in 2006,1 and have made significant progress in past two years. The FLA built an in-depth understanding of the tasks and risks involved in the hybrid seed production. Through this process, the FLA developed and field tested a set of benchmarks and a monitoring system with relevant tools for the agriculture sector, based on ILO conventions and the FLA’s Principles of Monitoring. In keeping with the FLA 3.0 philosophy, five multi-stakeholder consultations were jointly held by the FLA and Syngenta at different stages of the process to share the project with stakeholders and solicit their advice. Stakeholders prioritized monitoring of child labor, health and safety, and wages and benefits, as well as remedial actions on child labor and health and safety. Many stakeholders, who attended the consultations and provided candid opinions, viewed the meetings as successful and appreciated Syngenta’s willingness to integrate recommendations into their internal compliance program. In 2008, FLA conducted unannounced independent external monitoring (IEM) visits of Syngenta’s farms. Each IEM was conducted on a cluster of approximately 25 farms each selected at random from farm lists provided by Syngenta. This was done as the farms are small and ranged between 0.25 – 1 acre. Health and safety, code awareness and hours of work emerged as top three non-compliance issues in external monitoring. FLA as part of its transparency initiative, designated web space for the project on its website under special projects, where progress reports, research studies, monthly newsletters and monitoring reports with remediation plans are published. Syngenta submitted corrective action plan for the issues uncovered in both internal and external monitoring. Syngenta has made efforts to fulfill FLA’s company obligations as prioritized by stakeholders in the consultations. Although there are areas for improvement, the project has tested Syngenta’s commitment towards improving working conditions in their supply chain. Syngenta has internally monitored 1727 farms for all code of conduct elements in contrast to other seed companies operating in India, which only monitor for child labor,. This pilot project demonstrates that the FLA’s independent external monitoring methodology can be adapted well to the hybrid vegetable seed sector. The experience and learning from the Syngenta project suggest that the FLA system may have the capacity to go deeper into the supply chain of the apparel sector, such as home-based work, cotton seed production, and more. As the methodology emerging from the Syngenta project is further refined, it may prove to be adaptable to other supply chains involving small rural land holdings. Page 3 FLA SYNGENTA PROJECT REPORT 2007 - 2008 BACKGROUND The concern about unfair labor practices prevailing in the agriculture sector has been well documented in a range of studies by the International Labor Organization (ILO) 2, independent researchers 3, international 4 and national non government organizations (NGO) and media campaigns. There are several reports on poor working conditions in cotton production in Uzbekistan, Pakistan and India, cocoa farms in Africa and coffee estates in Central America. Some studies have also reported on child labor issues in the hybrid seed production sector in India 5. One such media campaign in 2003 regarding the presence of child labor in the Indian cotton seed farms of Syngenta Seeds Inc. brought that company to the Fair Labor Association (FLA). Syngenta Seeds Inc. is a Swiss multinational headquartered in Basel. It ranks third in high-value commercial seeds market in the world with sales of approximately $9.2 billion in 2007. Syngenta employs over 21,000 people in more than 90 countries. Until 2004, Syngenta was the largest producer of hybrid cotton seeds in the world with business accounting for USD 3 million. The FLA at that time had monitoring and remediation experience in the apparel, footwear and sporting goods sector. The FLA advised Syngenta to develop a project wherein both organizations would work in collaboration to map, assess, analyse, monitor and remediate the issues in Syngenta’s hybrid seed supply chain. FLA organized the first activity under the project in 2004. It developed a task and risk mapping methodology and mapped Syngenta’s hybrid cotton seed supply chain. Two Task and Risk Mapping Studies were commissioned by the FLA in April 2004 6 and October 2004 7 to identify the tasks undertaken in production of the hybrid cotton seeds and the risks associated to each task. The outcome of the first study was shared with stakeholders at a consultation held in Brussels in July 2004. The objective of the consultation was to put the corporate social responsibility commitments made by Syngenta into practice, to engage with stakeholders, to take the lead in several social and environmental issues, and to give stakeholder an opportunity to engage with the company. As requested by key stakeholders, such as the Indian Committee of Netherlands, a follow-up consultation was organized by Syngenta along with the FLA and Phillias in Hyderabad in July 2005.8 The objective of this consultation was to identify potential problems, reduce inherent risks of long production chains, and helping to assure sustainable social and environmental practices. Based on recommendation provided by the participants of both consultations, Syngenta and FLA’s staff in India started developing a monitoring program for the cotton seed sector. The company staff undertook certain preliminary steps such as drawing up written contracts with growers with clauses against employment of child labor, sponsoring education items in the village schools, and conducting awareness programs in the villages. As the project progressed, Syngenta took the business decision to sell their global cotton seed business. Nevertheless, they decided to continue their engagement with the FLA and start monitoring their hybrid vegetable seed farms, the second most important business for them. Most learning from the cotton seed sector could be well applied to the vegetable seeds. Therefore a program was initiated in the vegetable seed sector in June 2006. Similar methodology of task and risk mapping was used to Page 4 FLA SYNGENTA PROJECT REPORT 2007 - 2008 identify high risk areas in the vegetable seed sector.9 The FLA and Syngenta then jointly developed the seed production practices document 10 (benchmarks) to be adopted by the Syngenta growers and an internal monitoring program based on the FLA’s obligations of companies.11 Syngenta conducted internal monitoring of their farms in 2007. By the end of 2008, they had monitored a total of 1727 farms. Child labor was a problem during peak season, when 8-10 workers were needed for cross-pollination activities. Health, safety and environment (HSE) also emerged as a priority issue as workers were not aware of personal protection during chemical use. Syngenta developed comprehensive health and safety remediation plans. To tackle the child labor issue, the FLA and Syngenta invited a selected group of experts to the Hyderabad consultation in November 2007, to discuss the child labor issue in Syngenta’s okra and pepper farms.12 Based on expert recommendations, Syngenta developed an additional child labor monitoring tool for the farms. They also introduced an incentive scheme 13 and piloted it with their okra growers in April 2008. Syngenta monitored their farms three times in one production season as prescribed by the task and risk mapping. Growers who were in compliance at all three monitoring events were given a bonus of up to 5 percent of the total procurement price. The maximum leverage, in the incentive scheme, was given if there was an absence of child labor. Additionally, a progressive disciplinary policy was introduced, wherein after repeated reminders and remediation, a grower would be blacklisted if found delinquent on child labor for two consecutive production seasons. Several awareness building programs were mounted in the field. Pre-season meetings with the growers were organized to make them aware of the COC and Syngenta’s relationship with the FLA. Written contracts with fair working conditions clauses were drawn with growers. A labor monitoring tool was integrated with the existing
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Monitoring & Compliance
    I N S I G H T 4 Monitoring & Compliance: MSIs employ inadequate methods to detect human rights abuses and uphold standards The Institute for Multi-Stakeholder Initiative Integrity (MSI Integrity) aims to reduce the harms and human rights abuses caused or exacerbated by the private sector. For the past decade, MSI Integrity has investigated whether, when and how multi-stakeholder initiatives protect and promote human rights. The culmination of this research is now available in our report, Not Fit-for-Purpose: The Grand Experiment of Multi-Stakeholder Initiatives in Corporate Accountability, Human Rights and Global Governance. The full report contains six insights from experience with, and research into, international standard-setting multi-stakeholder initiatives. It also contains key conclusions from these insights, and perspectives on a way forward for improving the protection of human rights against corporate-related abuses. This is an excerpt of the full report, focusing on Insight 4. The six insights are: Insight 1: Influence — MSIs have been influential as human rights tools, but that influence, along with their credibility, is waning. Insight 2: Stakeholder Participation — MSIs entrench corporate power by failing to include rights holders and by preventing civil society from acting as an agent of change. Insight 3: Standards & Scope — Many MSIs adopt narrow or weak standards that overlook the root causes of abuses or risk creating a misperception that they are being effectively addressed. Insight 4: Monitoring & Compliance — MSIs employ inadequate methods to detect human rights abuses and uphold standards. Insight 5: Remedy — MSIs are not designed to provide rights holders with access to effective remedy.
    [Show full text]
  • Assessment of Nestlé's Standard Cocoa Supply Chain (Not Covered by the “Nestlé Cocoa Plan”) in Côte D'ivoire
    Improving Workers’ Lives Worldwide Pod opening at one of the assessed farms ASSESSMENT OF NESTLÉ’S STANDARD COCOA SUPPLY CHAIN (NOT COVERED BY THE “NESTLÉ COCOA PLAN”) IN CÔTE D’IVOIRE Prepared by the Fair Labor Association August 2016 ASSESSMENT OF NESTLÉ’S STANDARD COCOA SUPPLY CHAIN IN CÔTE D’IVOIRE TABLE OF CONTENTS I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...............................................................................................................................................3 II. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................................5 III. BACKGROUND ..............................................................................................................................................................6 a. About Nestlé Standard Supply Chain Assessment .....................................................................................................6 b. Supply Chain Management System at Tier 1 Supplier viz à viz Assessed Traitant ..............................................8 IV. METHODOLOGY ...........................................................................................................................................................9 a. Assessment Team ................................................................................................................................................................9 b. Sample Selection .................................................................................................................................................................9
    [Show full text]
  • 2017 Annual Report 2016 Board of Directors
    2017 ANNUAL REPORT 2016 BOARD OF DIRECTORS The following representatives from each of the Fair Labor Association’s three constituent groups — companies, universities, and civil society organizations (CSOs) — served on the FLA’s Board of Directors in 2016, along with an independent chair. CHAIR Kathryn “Kitty” Higgins Former U.S. Deputy Secretary of Labor Company Representatives University Representatives CSO Representatives Karen Daubert Marsha Dickson Cara Chacon Washington University in Educators for Socially Patagonia St. Louis Responsible Apparel Business Monica Gorman Bob Durkee Linda Golodner New Balance Princeton University National Consumers League ABOVE: A worker in Ivory Coast dries cocoa beans destined for products made by FLA Participating Company Nestlé. ON THE COVER: A worker operates a manual fabric cutting machine at a garment factory in El Salvador owned and operated by FLA Participating Company League Collegiate. The 2017 Annual Public Report for the Fair Labor Association Brad Grider Richard Fairchild Meg Roggensack Hanesbrands Georgetown Law School covers program and financial activity for 2016. University of Utah TABLE OF CONTENTS Gregg Nebel Kathy Hoggan Jim Silk adidas Group University of Washington Yale Law School 2016 Board of Directors ...............................................................3 Foreword ............................................................................4 Maureen Riedel Letter from the President ..............................................................5 Marissa Pagnani Nina Smith
    [Show full text]
  • FORCED LABOR in SUPPLY CHAINS: Addressing Risks and Safeguarding Workers’ Freedoms FORCED LABOR in SUPPLY CHAINS
    FORCED LABOR IN SUPPLY CHAINS: Addressing Risks and Safeguarding Workers’ Freedoms FORCED LABOR IN SUPPLY CHAINS orced labor, trafficking, and modern slavery (referred to collectively herein as forced labor) are human rights abuses persistent in global supply chains. FThe International Labour Organization (ILO) estimates that, in 2016, 16 million people were in situations of forced labor in the private sector. Companies must be vigilant in their commitment to safeguard workers’ rights, in particular with regard to the risk of forced labor. Global efforts to tackle the problem of forced labor include new laws and regulations as well as new benchmarking initiatives aimed at highlighting the best and worst practices amongst companies. Companies face serious legal and reputational risks if they do not take effective action to prevent forced labor in their global supply chains. The Fair Labor Association’s (FLA) stand against forced labor has been evident since the organization’s foundation in 1999. FLA standards on forced labor detail more than a dozen indicators for companies evaluating whether their suppliers or producers are upholding their human rights commitments and can be used at any supply chain level. The FLA Workplace Code of Conduct (the FLA Code) clearly states that there “shall be no use of forced labor, including prison labor, indentured labor, bonded labor or other forms of forced labor.” This brief focuses on international standards, frameworks and best practices for identifying and eradicating forced labor in supply chains. It explains the indicators of forced labor as set out in the FLA Code, provides examples of risks and violations reported by the FLA’s on-the-ground assessors, and offers recommendations of proactive and cooperative steps that companies can take to ensure suppliers do not engage in, contribute to, or tolerate forced labor.
    [Show full text]
  • Fair Labor Association (FLA) Profile Completed by Daniel Eyal Last Edited June 26, 2014 History of the Organ
    Fair Labor Association (FLA) Profile completed by Daniel Eyal Last edited June 26, 2014 History of the Organization The Fair Labor Association (FLA), headquartered in Washington, D.C., was founded in 1996 when then­President Bill Clinton convened the Apparel Industry Partnership (AIP), a meeting of apparel brands, NGOs and labor unions with the aim of ameliorating terrible working conditions in apparel and footwear factories around the world, especially in developing nations.1 Out of this, the FLA was created as a 501 c(3) non­profit organization tasked with auditing factories and protecting labor rights around the world. Purpose of the Organization and Services Offered The Fair Labor Association (FLA) purports to “combine the efforts of business, civil society organizations, and colleges and universities to promote and protect workers’ rights and to improve working conditions globally through adherence to international standards.”2 The FLA works towards this goal through three particular means.3 First, the FLA seeks to “[hold] affiliated companies accountable for implementing FLA’s Code of Conduct across their supply chains.” Second, the FLA “conduct[s] external assessments so that consumers can be assured of the integrity of the products they buy.” Finally, the FLA “seek[s] to create a space where CSOs [Civil Society Organizations] can engage with companies and other stakeholders to find viable solutions to labor concerns.”4 Essential to achieving the FLA’s mission is providing training and resources (online and in­person) for both affiliated and nonaffiliated companies and factories so that they are capable of implementing FLA’s Code of Conduct.
    [Show full text]
  • Fair Labor Association Year Two Annual Public Report Part 1 of 4
    Fair Labor Association Year Two Annual Public Report Part 1 of 4 Published August 18, 2004 This is the first of four parts of a printer-friendly version of the Fair Labor Association’s Year Two report, which was designed for website use. Therefore, some of the website features (including links and layering) have been modified or removed from this print version. Please access the FLA’s website, accessible at www.fairlabor.org/2004report, to utilize these features. Please note also that the FLA publicly reports on all of its independent external monitoring visits on a factory-by-factory basis. Those reports, which are called FLA tracking charts, complement the FLA’s annual public report by providing very detailed information about selected factories. The tracking charts can be found at http://www.fairlabor.org/all/transparency/reports.html Please direct questions about the report to [email protected]. 1 This report is organized as follows: In Part One: I. About this Report II. Companies Up Close – an Introduction A. Participating Companies 1) adidas-Salomon 2) Eddie Bauer 3) GEAR for Sports 4) Liz Claiborne 5) Nike 6) Nordstrom 7) Patagonia 8) Phillips-VanHeusen 9) Reebok (including Reebok footwear, an FLA-accredited compliance program) 10) Zephyr-Graf-X In Part Two: B. Category B Licensees 1) American Pad and Paper, LLC 2) Commemorative Brands, Inc. 3) Cutter & Buck, Inc. 4) Drew Pearson Marketing 5) Global Accessories, Inc. 6) Herff Jones, Inc. 7)Jostens,Inc. 8)Lands’End,Inc. 9) MBI, Inc. 10) New Era Cap Company, Inc. 11) Outdoor Cap Company 12) Oxford Industries, Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • Meaningful Change: Raising the Bar in Supply Chain Workplace Standards.” Corporate Social Responsibility Initiative, Working Paper No
    Meaningful Change Raising the Bar in Supply Chain Workplace Standards Roseann Casey Prepared for John Ruggie Faculty Chair, Corporate Social Responsibility Initiative Kirkpatrick Professor of International Affairs Weil Director, Mossavar-Rahmani Center for Business and Government John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, and UN Secretary-General’s Special Representative for Business & Human Rights November 2006 ⎪ Working Paper No. 29 A Working Paper of the: Corporate Social Responsibility Initiative A Cooperative Project among: The Mossavar-Rahmani Center for Business and Government The Center for Public Leadership The Hauser Center for Nonprofit Organizations The Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy Citation This paper may be cited as: Casey, Roseann. 2006. “Meaningful Change: Raising the Bar in Supply Chain Workplace Standards.” Corporate Social Responsibility Initiative, Working Paper No. 29. Cambridge, MA: John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University. Comments may be directed to the author or to John Ruggie. We acknowledge with gratitude the financial support of the Friedrich Ebert Stiftung for the consultations and the preparation of this report. Corporate Social Responsibility Initiative The Corporate Social Responsibility Initiative at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government is a multi-disciplinary and multi-stakeholder program that seeks to study and enhance the public contributions of private enterprise. It explores the intersection of corporate responsibility, corporate governance and strategy, public policy, and the media. It bridges theory and practice, builds leadership skills, and supports constructive dialogue and collaboration among different sectors. It was founded in 2004 with the support of Walter H. Shorenstein, Chevron Corporation, The Coca-Cola Company, and General Motors.
    [Show full text]
  • Is Nestlé's Clmrs Contributing to the Reduction of Child Labor in Its Cocoa Supply Chain in Côte D'ivoire?
    Is Nestlé’s CLMRS CONTRIBUTING TO THE REDUCTION OF CHILD LABOR IN ITS COCOA SUPPLY CHAIN IN Côte d’IvoIRE? OCTOBER 2020 TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary .............................................................. 2 Background ..................................................................... 5 Child Labor in the Cocoa Sector in Cote d’Ivoire — a Complex and Persistent Issue ......... 5 Nestlé’s Child Labor Monitoring and Remediation System ............................... 9 Measuring the Impact of the Child Labor Monitoring and Remediation System ............ 10 Child Labor Monitoring ............................................................. 12 Data from the Child Labor Monitoring and Remediation System (CLMRS) ................ 12 Child Labor Awareness and Sensitization ............................................. 17 Enabling Education ................................................................. 19 Labor Force Initiatives: Community Service Groups .................................... 25 Income-Generating Activities ........................................................ 27 Overall Perception About CLMRS .................................................... 30 Conclusions .................................................................... 31 Annex 1: Methodology, Sampling & Limitations ...................................... 33 Annex 2: Nestlé’s CLMRS Data — 2017 and 2019 ..................................... 36 ABOUT THE FAIR LABOR AssOCIATION The Fair Labor Association promotes and protects workers’ rights and improves
    [Show full text]
  • Piloting the United States Department of Agriculture Guidelines for Eliminating Child Labor and Forced Labor in Turkey's Hazel
    Piloting the United States Department of Agriculture Guidelines for Eliminating Child Labor and Forced Labor in Turkey’s Hazelnut Supply Chain PROJECT HIGHLIGHTS This report tells the story of Nestlé, the world’s largest food and beverage company, and its two hazelnut suppliers in Turkey, Olam and Balsu, as they pilot-tested the United States Department of Agriculture Guidelines for Eliminating Child Labor and Forced Labor in Agricultural Supply Chains (USDA Guidelines) in Turkey’s hazelnut supply chain. This project was a partnership between the three companies and the Fair Labor Association (FLA), funded by the United States Department of Labor (USDOL). Hazelnuts are grown in the Black Sea region of Turkey. In the summer, tens of thousands of ABOUT THE USDA GUIDELINES seasonal migrant workers, mostly from the Southeast region bordering Syria, travel across the country to harvest hazelnuts for 30-45 days. Children often work alongside their parents in the • Developed by a multi-stakeholder STANDARDS hazelnut gardens. consultative group appointed by the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture, the USDA Guidelines were officially adopted in 2011. They are organized around seven elements. SUPPLY CHAIN MAPPING • The USDA Guidelines embody a practical AND RISK MANAGEMENT approach for companies developing internal management systems to address child and COLLABORATION STRONG PROGRAMS UNDERSTANDING PROCESSES forced labor-related issues. MAXIMIZES IMPACT DEPEND ON WORKERS’ NEEDS AND PROGRAMS COMMUNICATION SOLID DATA IS CRUCIAL REQUIRE FLEXIBILITY • The USDA Guidelines provide a robust Addressing systemic framework to engage stakeholders across issues like child labor In addition to commodity Not every workforce faces Risk assessment and agricultural supply chains.
    [Show full text]
  • Pvh Corp Assessment for Reaccreditation
    PVH CORP. ASSESSMENT FOR REACCREDITATION October 2016 PVH: ASSESSMENT FOR REACCREDITATION OF THE COMPANY’S SOCIAL COMPLIANCE PROGRAM TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 3 Section 1: PVH Company Affiliate Overview ........................................................................... 4 Section 2: PVH'S Supply Chain & FLA Due Diligence Activities from 2008-2016 ................. 5 Section 3: Analysis of PVH's Labor Compliance Program for Reaccreditation .................... 6 Reaccreditation ............................................................................................................................ Principle 1: Workplace Standards ................................................................................. 6 Principle 2: Responsibility & Head Office Training ........................................................ 6 Principle 3: Supplier Training ......................................................................................... 8 Principle 4: Functioning Grievance Mechanisms .......................................................... 9 Principle 5: Monitoring ................................................................................................. 10 Principle 6: Collection & Management of Compliance Information ........................... 12 Principle 7: Timely & Preventative Remediation ......................................................... 13 Principle 8: Responsible Purchasing
    [Show full text]
  • Corporate Social Responsibility and Freedom of Association Rights: The
    PAS40410.1177/00323 46098329212460983Politics & SocietyAnner Politics & Society 40(4) 609 –644 Corporate Social © 2012 SAGE Publications Reprints and permission: Responsibility and Freedom sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/0032329212460983 of Association Rights: http://pas.sagepub.com The Precarious Quest for Legitimacy and Control in Global Supply Chains Mark Anner1 Abstract Corporations have increasingly turned to voluntary, multi-stakeholder governance programs to monitor workers’ rights and standards in global supply chains. This article argues that the emphasis of these programs varies significantly depending on stakeholder involvement and issue areas under examination. Corporate-influenced programs are more likely to emphasize detection of violations of minimal standards in the areas of wages, hours, and occupational safety and health because focusing on these issues provides corporations with legitimacy and reduces the risks of uncertainty created by activist campaigns. In contrast, these programs are less likely to emphasize workers’ rights to form democratic and independent unions, bargain, and strike because these rights are perceived as lessening managerial control without providing firms with significant reputational value. This argument is explored by coding 805 factory audits of the Fair Labor Association between 2002 and 2010, followed by case studies of Russell Athletic in Honduras, Apple in China, and worker rights monitoring in Vietnam. Keywords apparel industry, corporate social responsibility, workers’
    [Show full text]
  • Enable Toolkit Module03
    ENABLE Training Toolkit Implementing Responsible Sourcing and Production in Agricultural Supply Chains MODULE 3: Communication and Worker Engagement Facilitators Manual I. MODULE AT GLANCE ................................................................................................................................... 2 1.1. INTERNAL COMMUNICATION ................................................................................................................. 3 1. WHO MUST A COMPANY COMMUNICATE WITH INTERNALLY WHEN SETTING UP A DUE DILIGENCE PROGRAM? ......... 3 2. HOW IMPORTANT IS INTERNAL COMMUNICATION? ............................................................................................. 4 1.2. STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT .................................................................................................................. 6 3. WHAT STAKEHOLDERS SHOULD I ENGAGE WITH AS PART OF MY HUMAN RIGHTS DUE DILIGENCE PROGRAM? ........... 6 4. WHAT ARE THE BENEFITS OF STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT? ................................................................................ 8 5. WHAT ELEMENTS SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT STRATEGY? ........................................... 9 6. WHAT IS STAKEHOLDER MAPPING? .................................................................................................................. 12 7. HOW CAN I IDENTIFY STAKEHOLDERS? ............................................................................................................. 13 8. HOW CAN I PROFILE MY STAKEHOLDERS? ........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]