
See No Evil: Transparency in the Supply Chain - eaguyhn
https://logicmag.io/04-see-no-evil/
======
joveian
"We’ve chosen scale, and the conceptual apparatus to manage it, at the expense
of finer-grained knowledge that could make a more just and equitable
arrangement possible."

There is some truth to that, but there are also cases where companies monitor
the root hairs of the supply chain for quality but forbid the quality
inspectors from reporting any human rights issues they see (and/or they
arrange the inspections to limit the chance that they will see any such
issues). IIRC (I don't have a good link at the moment but will update if I
find one), this is particularly likely to happen with industry run
certifications like Rainforest Alliance or Forest Stewardship Council where
the certifications claim to do detailed tracking for environmental or social
reasons but because they are run by companies that profit off of exploitation
they rather provide a framework for punishing suppliers with quality issues.

It is a very much intentional situation and not just on the part of companies
but also the governments of powerful countries that ensure that exploitative
arrangements are available. It is not, as the author claims, something that
was made possible by the internet but is a defining aspect of the last at
least five hundred years of world history, the major driving force behind
colonialism. For anyone who cares about human rights or history it is a vital
topic to pay attention to.

In terms of how to attempt to avoid at least the worst of the exploitation
when buying things, look for fair trade certifications or other certifications
that have a fair trade aspects that are supported by labor and human rights
organizations and not just industry group. Avoid buying from the largest food
and clothing companies as they are some of the worst offenders. Support
politicians and labor and human rights organizations that work to hold
companies accountable for their supply chain conditions.

~~~
dannydomb
I am currently working for a company trying to encourage different domains to
actually have data to back up their claim that their products is fair trade,
child labor free, etc. I can tell you that except a very handful of companies,
nobody can back their claim that their certifications is worth anything.

Most of our projects end up being buried since it would prove that the
industry have been lying for a long while.

It doesn't matter if you are trying to buy fair trade products or not, it
mostly isn't.

~~~
joveian
You may be right, however a benefit of certifications supported by labor
rights or human rights organizations is that those organizations have some
ability to contact affected workers. Even if those certifications aren't as
good as they claim I would need evidence that those rights organizations are
not doing anything helpful to convince me that the certifications are
completely worthless (although supporting the rights organizations is also
necessary for certification to have any influence at all). It is possible that
the list of certifications supported by rights organizations is smaller than I
would think.

I will point out that various organizations with large marketing budgets have
a vested interest in convincing as many people as possible that nothing you
can do matters and you shouldn't try to do anything different. I have come
across the issue you are describing with even somewhat decent-seeming
certifications (Cradle to Cradle, which is not backed by rights organizations
as far as I know and is mostly a self audit sold by a consulting company) so
I'm not saying you are necessarily doing marketing.

I am interested if you have any other comments on this topic.

Edit: Another benefit of certifications is that it can open companies to
lawsuits where they are selling products that they wouldn't be exposed to
without making claims based on certifications.

~~~
TaylorAlexander
The benefits you mention seem valid, but I would also point out the problem of
complacency. If people falsely believe that buying “rainforest certified”
products means they aren’t impacting the rain forests, they’ll feel satisfied
with their efforts. If they knew however that the label was a lie, they’d
maintain their guilt for hurting the earth and feel motivated to do more.
False certifications pacify the people from making more real change.

~~~
joveian
I think it is a good idea to keep in mind that the lucrative business
opportunity here is convincing potential customers that things are much better
than they actually are (at the lowest possible cost), and advertising will be
geared to that effect.

However, this issue has been going on for hundreds of years. It is still in
the US possible to buy products produced in part by slave labor, forced labor,
and/or child labor. I do not belive at all that people will make "real change"
even without certification. Just the legal standing aspect is a huge reason to
prefer certification even if they are entirely false advertising. If you can
find one that helps avoid the worst issues meanwhile, then that is even better
and can directly impact someone's life today, while leaving plenty of issues
left to demand change. It can also be a way to frequently remind people that
there is a problem, and anyone who genuinely belives that certifications will
fix the issues may be more likely to demand change once they find out that
isn't true. On the flip side, people who believe there is nothing at all they
can do to make a difference seem highly unlikely to demand change. So, I still
think trying to find the best available certifications is one thing that
people can do to potentially have a small immediate positive effect and at
least establish a ritual around caring and the possibility of legal challenges
to force change. I also think it is worth avoiding the wost of the worst
companies and supporting politicians and organizations that are working to
make larger changes. If you have alternative suggestions, please share.

Here is one example that I came across recently about someone using legal
standing from certification to force small changes:
[http://waterandsanitationhealth.com/newsroom/](http://waterandsanitationhealth.com/newsroom/)

------
euske
Whoa. This is such a profound piece. We praise information hiding and process
isolation because it is the key to a large-scale system that is successful,
and indeed it _is_ the key to a large-scale system that is successful! Of
course the information get hidden away, and we have to face its consequence.

------
jacques_chester
> _It’s entirely possible to have an astoundingly effective supply chain while
> also knowing very little about it. Not only is it possible: it may be the
> enabling condition of capitalism at a global scale._

In Hayek's view, this is a _defining_ characteristic of capitalism.

There is a "structure of production", far too vast for any planner (or supply
chain management expert) to comprehend. But it works anyway through a process
of distributed information discovery coordinated in the minimum by prices.

Put another way: without prices, it stops working at all, SAP or not.

Where supply chain management mostly comes from is that to the extent that
companies can _add_ to price-based coordination, they can improve
profitability for the participating members of the supply chain. The classic
problem is "the bullwhip effect". We recognise a similar phenomenon in buffer
bloat. Where you have local inventories and local optimisation, you can get a
great deal of unpleasant oscillation.

