The Unseen Risks of Complex Supply Chains

---

My Sustainable Encounter with Ariba Naaz

by Albert Schiller

The global economy thrives on intricate supply chains. Yet, this complexity often conceals critical information concerning safety and worker well-being. Ariba Naaz, whose professional focus includes auditing and sustainability within these networks, points to a significant problem: a pervasive lack of visibility. This issue becomes more pronounced "the deeper we go into the supply chain," making it "harder to see what's going on". This challenge is not merely logistical but fundamentally impacts the ability to ensure genuine sustainability and safety beyond the immediate, tier-one suppliers.

Ariba explains that audits, which are typically "pre-announced," allow facilities to prepare. This preparation can create an idealized picture that does not reflect daily operational reality. Consequently, it becomes "difficult for us to know what is happening". This extends to crucial social aspects. It is hard to ascertain if workers feel "free that they can come to us and talk about the problems that they are facing," including questions of fair pay or equality regarding gender related topics. This raises the question of whether there is a critical gap between compliance on paper and authentic conditions on the ground.

Training: Bridging the Knowledge Gap

For Ariba, addressing this gap and influencing behavior relies on training. If people "don't know why they are doing what they are doing" or "what can be the cons if they don't do this," safety issues and poor practices will persist. Training must instill an intrinsic "need to do it on their own". This involves showing employees the real-world implications of their actions. Ariba cites her NEBOSH training experience. Videos of accidents "that have happened with people all around the world" served as powerful demonstrations. These "concrete visuals can be eye-opening," providing a relatable understanding of the risks of neglecting safety protocols.

Such direct exposure transforms abstract rules into tangible consequences. Ariba emphasizes that seeing "those things happening to people working in the same working conditions as you" compels individuals to "obviously want to avoid that in the future". This educational approach aims to cultivate a personal commitment to safety, moving beyond check box compliance. It seeks to shift behavior by nurturing understanding rather than solely relying on external enforcement.

The Limits of Deterrence: Penalties and Incentives

However, the efficacy of visual deterrents and training has limitations. Not all individuals respond uniformly to warnings. A segment might dismiss risks, believing an accident "would never happen to me." This points to a deeper psychological barrier. If warnings are insufficient, what other systemic levers exist to compel responsible behavior?

Ariba acknowledges that punitive measures can serve as a "second step" when caution fails. A fine, for instance, should be significant enough that people "keep it in mind the next time they are doing something like that again". This implies a penalty designed for deterrence and education. However, a critical question arises: Can penalties, particularly in high-risk environments, inadvertently lead to more dangerous "gray areas" or creative workarounds? If the focus shifts solely to avoiding detection, individuals might bypass safety protocols when unobserved. This creates a parallel system of non-compliance, endangering the individual and colleagues.

Conversely, could positive reinforcement be more effective for those not moved by fear of harm? Ariba suggests that "giving them incentives for things that they should be doing anyway" can lead to "positive outcomes". This pragmatic view recognizes the complexity of human motivation. An incentive system, carefully designed, could align individual self-interest with organizational safety goals. It shifts the focus from avoiding punishment to gaining benefits. This approach might appeal to those who view compliance as an unnecessary burden, reframing safety as an opportunity rather than a restriction. The aim remains to achieve genuine behavioral change, whether through understanding, deterrence, or reward.

So what can we take from her approach?

Questions for Audience

1. Ariba Naaz highlights that pre-announced audits often fail to capture the true working conditions in supply chains. What are the most ethical and effective ways for companies to gain genuine, unfiltered insights into their entire supply network, especially its lower tiers?

2. The discussion touches on whether penalties or incentives are more effective in promoting safety. For a large organization, which approach do you believe offers a more sustainable long-term solution for fostering a culture of safety, and why?