The study looks at corporate ‘complicity’ in the actions of a state or other actor against the citizens of a country, and the idea that as social actors, companies and corporations should be working to prevent such actions; the very idea that underpins the concept of Corporate Social Responsibility. But the concept has thus far largely been a theoretical one.

However, there have been cases of corporations being held to account; the ICJ report cites the examples of senior company officials being convicted of war crimes for supplying poisonous gas to the Nazis and enslaving workers in their factories, and the increasing use of the Alien Tort Claims Act to bring cases against American corporations acting abroad.

But the ICJ have considered the concept of complicity in a global context, asking when and how companies could be considered to be complicit in the human rights abuses that are occurring in the world today. Their answers to these questions may surprise some, although they are based on fundamental concepts of law and morality.

The ICJ states that where a company’s conduct enables, exacerbates or facilitates gross human rights abuses, where a company knows or can foresee that this is the case, and where there is proximity to the perpetrator, the company could be held legally liable, both in civil and criminal law, nationally and internationally, for those human rights abuses.

In terms of labour standards and the supply chain, the IJC states that where there is proximity to the supplier or other actor who is perpetrating the human rights abuses and where it is foreseeable that the policies or actions of the corporation could exacerbate, enable or facilitate the abuses; the corporation could be liable.

Actions or policies could include pricing, lead times, paying specific types of taxes, or not acting on previous allegations or findings regarding a particular supplier. The proximity of the supplier to the buying company is important, but it is perfectly possible for a company to be held liable if they are aware of issues in a particular region and do nothing to alleviate them.

The ICJ limits its discussion to gross human rights abuses such as torture, slavery and child labour; but the theory is applicable to other abuses such as low wages, high hours and sub-standard health and safety, all of which are included in international human rights frameworks. The ICJ provides guidelines for corporations on how to change their behaviour to avoid complicity, and the current methodology in the CSR field also provides a good framework.

Although the impact of this report will not be clear until cases are brought and examples begin to provide the structure through which corporations are held to account in particular countries or internationally, Impactt believes that the report provides further pressure on companies to address the way they trade.

A consumer survey was published last week which found that many consumers do not believe fashion retailers’ claims on ethical sourcing. It also stated that the most important issue to consumers was whether or not there were underage or child workers making the products that they were buying.

The study, published by TNS Worldpanel Fashion, asked 7,000 people about the ethical credentials claimed by UK retailers. 45% said that they were sceptical. It suggested that older buyers (over 55) were more interested in ethical claims than those under the age of 25.

Our own experience shows that customers are pleasantly surprised to hear how much work certain fashion retailers are doing on ethics. More people are checking the labels for information. More people are becoming more discriminating in which claims they choose to believe.

Here at Impactt we welcome increased consumer interest. We welcome the exposes and the media coverage, but it would be great if retailers, brands, NGOs, unions and journalists could report more credible good news stories to customers – more stories to show that by working hard on these issues we can all make a difference to the lives of the people making the stuff we buy.

• Eliminate excessive overtime in their contract factories
• Implement tailored human resource management systems and educational training for workers in their focus factories
• Implement Freedom of Association Educational programmes in 100 percent of focus factories
• And lead multi-brand collaboration on compliance issues in 30 percent of their supply chain

Nike describe how their programme has gone through three iterations. Generation I and II were about standards and monitoring, Generation III they argue is about ‘responsible competitiveness’, identifying and remediating root causes with systemic approaches. Specifically it focuses on:

• Building excellence in factory remediation
• Developing sustainable sourcing strategies
• Building business integration and accountability
• Increasing contract factory ownership of corporate responsibility
• Building industry coalitions

Nike used to be synonymous with sweatshops. They are now, along with the GAP, widely acknowledged within the ethical trade community as having the leading and most well resourced ethical trading programmes of all companies. That’s not to say they haven’t got problems. No companies can guarantee that their supply chains are problem free. After all this is about human relationships and about 800,000 young women in very poor countries.

Nike argues that most people in ethical trade have become experts in rooting out the bad, but the real challenge is in outlining and delivering a vision of success.

One could quibble about whether all ethical traders are finding the problems in their supply chains, however Nike are right about the need for successful visions. Nike should be applauded for setting themselves such ambitious goals. But the proof of the pudding will be in the eating.