Death to Manels
I once had a boss who told his management team in no uncertain terms, that if a machine was down, or a solution needed to be found, that he expected us to listen to all who take the time and effort to afford you their thoughts. “If the cleaning lady shares an idea, I want you to listen to it and evaluate it, without bias,” he said. I’m paraphrasing, of course, but you get the idea.
Well, the machines are down. As you can see in our , Covid has left our planet and its people in a worsened state, and let’s be honest, we weren’t doing that great going in. It’s time to get all hands on deck, so we can procure and manage our supply chains, and our profits ethically and sustainably.
So, could it finally be time to do away with "manels"?
Manels; the symptom, not the disease
I can’t lie, I was a little slow on the uptake on this one, quick to point to a lack of female representation in the industry as reasoning behind the still all too often seen all-male panels. Although it’s true that manels are a manifestation of a deeper problem, and we can’t simply change the face of boards of companies and C-Suite execs overnight, we can change our perceptions of what and who is worth listening to.
Subject matter expertise, technical knowledge and valuable opinions do not lie in a pool of only men and come, regardless of gender and as brightly hued as the rainbow, from all corners of our planet. As Stacy Norman, BizClik Media Group’s COO, points out in our feature, we are finally making some headway on gender parity, and the women listed earned their place as well as the respect of their peers.
Although I do not personally believe in forced quotas and providing opportunities simply to make for good PR, as the argues, “Impressive women can be found all over, with no question of diluting standards (and plenty of dull male speakers can be found at every conference). Nor, in my experience, is there any need to look for specifically “women’s voices” — just people who know what they are talking about and can do it well.”
Procurement's Branding Problem
Procurement and supply chain have long since had a branding problem, an issue that perpetuates the manels we continue to see today. If we want to attract more diverse talent to the industry, representation is important.
As a young girl, I didn’t need Dora the Explorer, I needed Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in all of her red-lipsticked fire-tongued glory to make it a little more conceivable that great things were possible. As a woman who stood time and again in boardrooms full of men, fighting to earn their trust and their respect so I could best manage their spend, I could have used a procurement magazine that reflected my ethnicity and my gender in its pages.
Are there things we could be doing better? I’m sure there are. Quite frankly, there are things I could be doing better, and I will most certainly work towards that end. But taking a look at these amazingly diverse magazines full of rich and valuable content, I am glad to be where I’m at, working hard with a team looking to make things better.
Human’s are often the first to get in their own way, but just as the pandemic has accelerated the adoption of tech and a focus on resilience, it’s my hope that with some hard conversations and the calling out of truths, we can domino this into an acceleration of changing mindsets. Because in reality, at a time when we need to find better ways of doing things, fast, for the good of our planet and its people, we simply can not afford to remain stagnant in our old ways.
Happy International Women’s Day and congratulations to all the amazing women who made our list, and may we continue to #choosetochallenge.
P.S., AOC’s signature red lipstick is Beso by Stila, and it’s fire.
Want to chat about Procurement or diversity? Have something cool going on I should know about? Send me a message and let’s chat, [email protected]
Germany Adopts Revolutionary Supply Chain Human Rights Laws
While the title states that Germany’s newly adopted that targets human rights abuse across global supply chains is “revolutionary” ─ which it is ─, it certainly shouldn’t be. But nonetheless, today, on June 11th, 2021, the German Parliament has ushered in a long-awaited shift to mandatory company compliance rules. After months of negotiation, the German lawmakers finally pushed it over the finish line within the final days of the current legislative period. The bill will see German multinational corporations held legally responsible for any human rights or environmental abuses found across their global supply chains.
“The German government has taken a critical step to ensure that companies operate responsibly,” said Juliane Kippenberg, associate director, children's rights division, at Human Rights Watch. “Respect for human rights in global supply chains is not something that should be optional.”
This news comes at a time when global corporations are already being pushed towards environmental, social and governance (ESG) compliance, with a massive drive to reduce Scope 1, 2, and 3 carbon emissions from their supply chain operations and a concerted effort to avoid suppliers and manufacturers that do not meet the standards that industry-leading companies are now expected to meet.
Who will the new law affect?
With Germany’s new legislation, organisations that fail to meet the rules and regulations could be forced to pay fines potentially equivalent to 2% of their annual global turnover. However, it isn’t applicable to all.
According to Reuters, under the act, companies above a certain size will be forced to establish set due diligence procedures that prevent the abuses; from 2023, only companies with more than 3,000 employees in Germany will be affected. From 2024, the rules will expand to companies with more than 1,000 employees.
Statistics from within the country suggest that the first stage of this regulation rollout will affect 900 companies, while the second stage will put 4,800 companies under the spotlight. The bill will also enable the government to temporarily exclude from public tenders companies that receive fines in excess of €175,000.
“Incalculable risks arise for companies,” said Joachim Lang, general manager at the Federation of German Industry. A word of warning from a respected leader, at a time when industry lobby groups and wholesale businesses fear that the new law increases bureaucracy and suggest that price rises may be inbound.
The Take of German Giants
After looking at the incoming legislation, Daimler AG, known more commonly as the automotive giant Mercedes-Benz, a company which, should there happen to be any ESG-compliance issues along its multinational supply chain, would pay a hefty fee, is welcoming of the push for change but hesitant about certain aspects of the bill.
“Daimler's position is: The respect for human rights is a central aspect of our sustainable business strategy. We, therefore, welcome the progress made on the Supply Chain Act. Although the regulations are very ambitious, the proposed legislation has a sound approach overall. It is based on internationally recognised human rights and on international agreements. And it gives companies more legal certainty in an area that has so far only been partially regulated.
Supply chains are not "chains" but rather exceedingly complex networks: Daimler alone has over 60,000 direct suppliers - and many more sub-suppliers. For this reason, we also consider the proposed risk-based gradual model to be sensible. The responsibility of the companies lies primarily in their own business area and with their direct suppliers. Companies must then take action in the deeper supply chain if there are concrete indications of human rights violations. Daimler AG already does that today.
Even though we support the proposed legislation in principle, we consider some aspects to be critical, e.g. the planned fines of up to 2% of the average annual turnover. Instead of threats of sanctions, we consider concrete measures, which companies must take in the event of deficits, to be more expedient. In addition, certain wordings are still vague and leave room for interpretation. Terms such as, e.g. "fair standard of living" should be phrased precisely in order to create legal certainty. Furthermore, documentation and reporting requirements should not lead to unnecessary bureaucracy and should be harmonised with existing rules. On the one hand, this does not help the people on the ground, and on the other hand, it puts a burden on the companies – and the implementation can pose substantial challenges for smaller companies in particular.”
This law is arguably one of the most important developments in the supply chain space so far this year. But it must be remembered that changes do not and will not happen at the push of a button and that democratic principles should be applied to the discussion prior to enshrining legislation into tablature. Environmental and human rights advocacy is a hike, not a brisk walk around the park ─ so, for German companies, it’s time to get their boots on the ground and start assessing their global, interconnected supply chain operations. And, hopefully, they’ll set a stellar example for the rest of us.