Relevant changes to the production process or within the production chain are to be reported to the committee. This can require additional proof of compliance with the criteria. An additional screening or visit can be imposed.
An annual follow-up monitoring is performed following a less strict at random method based on the risk categories. The monitoring will consist of an on-site monitoring or a renewed screening.
4.6 ALTERNATIVE SYSTEM
Even with the introduction of the screening the monitoring costs of the proposed method are high due to the fact that most products have large production chains with ramifications in several countries (cfr.
chapter VI.4). These costs could pose a barrier to the feasibility of label. SME’s would probably not be able to afford it.
An alternative “light” version of monitoring can be considered. The internal monitoring, the external product specific verification, the verification of the application file and the verification of the chain stay the same. The change would consist in limiting the monitoring to a short version of desktop screening, The screening would be limited to the search for controversies through internet and document research, without consultation of stakeholders for every company. Based on this research companies will be classified the same manner as described above. No site visits will be done. If all companies of the production chain are situated in category 3, the label can be given. If one or more companies are situated in category 2, a more in depth screening of those companies will be done. This means that more information is searched for and the management and relevant stakeholders are contacted, with priority to the union representatives of the company, workers and environmental NGO’s. Based on the findings the screening institute will give advise to the label committee. Proofs of compliance will be asked to management and relevant stakeholders will be contacted. A negative advice will be given to products with one or more category 1 companies in the production chain.
The annual follow-up screening will consist of an in depth screening of some of the category 2 companies.
Using this monitoring system makes the label more dependent on the correct information and the good will of the companies. This implies certain risks. Internal problems can be more easily overlooked, e.g. the presence of free unions or representative workers organisations will be more difficult to verify. On the other hand, companies have no interest in giving false information to the label instances. Even if the monitoring system is not tight, it still will find out all severe breeches if mentioned on Internet. This is more and more the case. The complaint system will also in this case provide for an extra safeguard.
5 CONCLUSIONS
The proposed procedure for the label is as follows. The applying company has to draw the process tree and the production chain and to a certain degree use an internal monitoring system to verify itself if all chain actors comply with the criteria. Following the product specific guidelines they will ask accredited verification institutes to execute the product specific verification.
Only when those steps are taken and all necessary documents are collected the applying company can submit an application file to the administration of the label (cfr. chapter VI.5.2.). The verification of the application file will be done by the secretariat of the label. When the application is accepted the committee of the label will appoint an accredited monitoring institution for the external monitoring of organisation related aspects (model 1) or the applying organisation itself will appoint an accredited monitor (model 2) (cfr. chapter IV.2).
The monitor will verify if the companies taking part in the production chain comply with the criteria and if the production chain as proposed by the company is genuine. Furthermore the monitoring consists in a screening for the identification of place specific problems and if necessary in on-site visits.
This analysis begins with an extended desktop screening. The screening will verify the production chain and look for possible controversies related to the criteria of the label within the production chain.
This includes the general criteria as well as the product specific criteria based on the LCA.
The desktop screening and the data provided by the company will determine the classification of the companies in different risk groups, in function of their (possible) non-compliances with the criteria of the label. If necessary companies to be visited on site will be chosen in function of their position in this list. A statistical method could be used to make the choice. Accredited auditors will perform the on-site visits following a written procedure provided by the administration of the label. The on-site visits will always be preceded by a preliminary research based on the screening to identify the weak points of the company, a visit of the workplaces and installations, interviews with the management and the workers, consultation of all relevant stakeholders with and within the company.
When the label is obtained, the committee does an annual follow-up. If controversies are expected or if relevant changes occurred within the chain a site visit or a screening could be programmed.
Production chains can be very extensive. This means that their monitoring could be very costly. A
“light” version of this monitoring scheme was proposed. In this method only the product related external monitoring changes. No site visits will be done and the first screening will be limited to documents and Internet research. Only when controversies are found management and stakeholders will be consulted. The follow-up monitoring will equally consist of a screening.
Figure 5 summarises the proposed monitoring model.
on-site visits
C
HAPTERV
E VALUATION
This chapter describes the evaluation methods used to reach a final decision on whether or not a label can be awarded to a certain product. Weighing methods are used to distinguish more and less important criteria, to each of which a score is attributed. After making up a balance of the scores of the different chain actors within the production chain, it is evaluated whether or not the label can be awarded. The theoretical background in paragraph 1 gives an overview of possible methods, which, of course, is non-exhaustive. After that, the methods employed in this project are illustrated in paragraph 2. This chapter is based on Sam Van den Plas’ thesis on the development of an evaluation method for a sustainable development label18.
1 THEORETICAL BACKGROUND