4.7 Article

Corporate social responsibility in Brazil according to SA 8000: Case studies and the correlation with the supply chain

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION
卷 210, 期 -, 页码 1022-1032

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.10.347

关键词

Corporate social responsibility; Supply chain; Management; SA 8000; Social accountability

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study presents the results of audits of social responsibility management systems according to SA 8000 standard carried out in 35 units of seven Brazilian organizations, in the fields of construction industry, financial institution, sugar and alcohol industry, printing, telemarketing and public administration, totaling 230,561 workers in the audited scopes, addressing medium and large size companies. An analysis of the main points of improvement and items associated with the difficulties of implementation and management was carried out, verifying that the requirements of SA 8000:2008 with lower adherence in terms of non-compliance are: Item 3 Occupational health and safety(sic), the item with the greatest difficulty of attendance in all segments and sizes of organizations, and the second largest item not met was the qualification and control of suppliers. As organizations, to obtain certification, must correct these problems and solve the requirements that their suppliers do not meet, this causes a great impact in the supply chain of these companies, since the suitability is extended to subcontracted companies impacting working conditions and increasing the degree of compliance with legislation throughout the production chain, with the improvement of working conditions in subcontracted companies, where often the working conditions are not adequate and legislation is not met. These results demonstrate the need to make social responsibility management systems more efficient, investing in actions to address non-compliances and improve management throughout the supply chain. (C) 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据