Thanks to those who have joined our online discussion - continuing the conversation from October's Responsible Sourcing Dialogue. The comments presented circle around brand leverage, NGO capacity building, educating suppliers, and investing in social impact. We at Timberland agree that we want our business presence to help improve the lives of our workers and their communities - hopefully moving beyond factory walls to achieve those goals. We also agree that there's no "easy solution" to measuring impact and that the impact of importance varies depending on the scope of the project. It is difficult to report aggregated global impact where projects are customized to the needs of the factory or community at hand. For example, we are involved with BSR's HER project aimed at improving worker health or human rights awareness. Here, we are working with the factories to measure impact by looking at improvements in attendance, moral, turnover, quality. We hope that with more projects showing evidence for the business case and return on investment, more brands and factories will see value in investing in their workers and their communities. I would be very interested in hearing others thoughts on how they have gone about measuring and reporting impact – project specific as well as global aggregate.

• Posted December 03, 2008
• Post by Timberland Administrator
• Reply
Delete

Stephen,

You state:

As this area the develops, I think brands should then turn their focus on building NGO's as a sort of "on the ground" check and balance.

I think this solution is easier said than done. One example: I visited multiple fair trade tea fields in India and stayed with the plantation managers. The plantation managers had made repeated calls to certain Fair Trade advisory organizations to visit their plantations on the ground. In two years, not one representative from those fair trade accreditation groups visited to hear about issues on the ground.

Do you think that it makes sense to invest in third party programs or just to internalize those costs into business processes? Starbucks C.A.F.E. Practices is a good example of a decision to internalize the costs, whatever you may think of the program. I'm torn and would love to hear more on this topic from the community.

• Posted November 27, 2008
• Post by Kevin Long
• Reply
Delete

What are the ways to measure effective training? Workers, suppliers, buying agents? What is the impact?

• Posted November 13, 2008
• Post by David Schilling
• Reply
Delete

David, thank you for posing this very specific question for the dialogue. I agree that measuring impact can be difficult to quantify, not only for training programs but also for beyond workplace initiatives. Number of projects, number of workers involved, sure, but how does one quantify the impact of these programs to the workers, to the community? Anecdotal analysis is one thing, such as surveying before/after knowledge. However, establishing quantifiable metrics to compare success/impact of programs is a challenge we all face. Developing the business case can be a driver for worker investment and training, establishing impact for the factory by way of reduced turnover, absenteeism, improved quality. But the business case is not reflective of the impact to the workers or the community. Perhaps another stakeholder is willing to share how they measure impact? I invite others to share ideas on what they would consider a meaningful metric.

• Posted November 24, 2008
• Post by Timberland Administrator
Delete

Stakeholder engagement is a critical component of delivering ongoing value to all participants in the supply chain. As we discussed during the call, the brand's responsibility does not stop at the doors to the factory. The brand has direct responsibility inside the factory and it should use management systems to drive continual improvement. But the brand must be aware of the leverage it has outside the factory and be creative in creating win-win situations that involve the factory management, the workers and the local NGOs. As the leading CSR companies seek to shift "from monitoring to capacity building" local NGOs are part of the infrastructure needed to sustain improvements in the workplace. Supplier development that makes strategic use of local partnerships can be more cost-effective, as well as more effective in improving the lives of the workers.

• Posted November 03, 2008
• Post by Craig Moss
• Reply
Delete

Hi Beth. Good question.

Ultimately yes, I think a brand should be investing in building capacity of NGO's in the communities of their workers, but I see this as more of a long-term strategy.

Currently, I think the primary effort of the brand should be to educate and "sell the business case" of responsible management to factory owners (living wage, job security, safe working conditions, etc.). There still remains a lot of work in taking factories beyond the compliance phase, to embedding these concepts into their business practices.

A good example of where the brand has started to build this capacity is PUMA's involvement in the GRI's "transparency in the supply chain" program where they have mentored their suppliers in adopting the GRI and used this as way to identify problems and areas that need improvement. Through this process they have educated factory owners on the business value in instituted progressive labour practices.

As this area the develops, I think brands should then turn their focus on building NGO's as a sort of "on the ground" check and balance.

• Posted November 03, 2008
• Post by Stephen Albinati
• Reply
Delete

Should the investments be made to support NGOs to support the workers... or the local community that supports the company? I've always thought that we must observe the "impact streams" of our companies. Therefore, most consumer brands impact the health and well being of: consumers, employees, (local and global) community, and the environment. As a small business owner, I feel obligated to support the community that enables my success, as well as positively impact the lives of employees and consumers (through products and services).

This isn't about checkwriting or cause marketing campaigns though, which is where it's easy to get off on the wrong track. It's about, as you said Beth, investing. And when investing, we aim to maximize return, which in this case should be that of positive social impact. Therefore it is the measurable social impact that is key, not the brand image or public appeal of the NGO or its ability to create a noteworthy cause marketing stunt, unless that (awareness) is the goal, not direct impact on the community.

Finally, it is worth pointing out that too many efforts are directed at investing in checkwriting when the company should be looking inward at its direct impacts on society and the environment. Obviously, Timberland is a leader in internalizing the mantra that is sustainability, with real attention paid to the long term impacts of its products and operations. But to borrow from Kellie McElhaney, former Executive Director of the Center for Responsible Business at Haas, social responsibility is not how a company spends the money it makes but instead how it makes the money it spends. Therefore, the prerequisite to looking outward is looking inward.

• Posted October 31, 2008
• Post by Ryan Mickle
• Reply
Delete

We are excited to continue this conversation online. Here's a follow up question to start us off:

Should a brand that's invested in bettering the lives of workers focus its efforts on capacity building of the NGOs in their local communities that will support the workers? How should a brand allocate its resources in doing so?

• Posted October 31, 2008
• Post by Timberland Administrator
• Reply
Delete