What is it about?
Based on a narrow scope of review, the OECD NCP of Germany found that Adidas was not responsible under the OECD Guidelines for the adverse human rights effects of the actions of its Indonesian subcontractor in footwear manufacturing.
Featured Image
Photo by Devi Puspita Amartha Yahya on Unsplash
Why is it important?
The case is an example of how companies utilize corporate, subcontracting, and investment strategies to avoid responsibility under the OECD Guidelines. The German NCP limited the scope of its review of Adidas's responsibilities for the adverse human rights effects of the actions of a subcontractor in Indonesia even though its main contractor was the subcontractor's primary investor. Wider applicability of the NCP's report may be limited because the narrow scope of review is out of sync with 2017 OECD guidance on due diligence in the garment and footwear manufacturing sectors, where the use of subcontractors is a foreseeable and common practice - especially in the wake of the 2013 Rana Plaza disaster in Bangladesh.
Perspectives
Read the Original
This page is a summary of: German ncp Releases Final Report under oecd Guidelines on Failure of Adidas to Mitigate Human Rights Effects of Subcontractor Actions in Indonesia, International Labor Rights Case Law, March 2021, Brill,
DOI: 10.1163/24056901-07010005.
You can read the full text:
Resources
OECD National Contact Point, Germany: Final Statement, Specific instance submitted by südwind Institut, Sedane Labour Resource Centre, Stichting Schone Kleren/Clean Clothes Campaign against Adidas ag, 24 April 2020
Key excerpts of Final Report issued by OECD National Contact Point of Germany on labor and human rights issues in Adidas's footwear manufacturing chain in Indonesia.
OECD Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Supply Chains in the Garment and Footwear Sector
2017 guidance issued by the OECD on due diligence in the garment and footwear manufacturing sector.
Contributors
The following have contributed to this page