Annual human rights performance index released [Nintendo, Sony, Microsoft]

[Deleted member 14459]

The annual Corporate Human Rights Benchmark (CHRB) assessment for human rights disclosures / performance has been released. CHRB is considered the most comprehensive index for human rights performance, measuring companies against United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. The 2020 report covers 229 global companies (and their supply chains) across five sectors identified as presenting a high risk of negative human rights impacts (agricultural products, apparel, extractives, ICT manufacturing and automotive manufacturing). The 2020 report does not contain analysis using the full set of indicators (max 100 points), because of Covid situation, and only contain the so-called core indicators (which give a maximum of 26 points). However, comparison is possible because CHRB relesea scores for both full and core sets every year.

In general the ICT sector is struggling when it comes to mere commitment/policy to basic human rights (which is what the core set focuses on) - but even for companies with robust commitments these rarely translate at a practical level, with allegations of severe human rights violations regularly raised.

Microsoft scores the highest of the console manufacturers with a score of 13 (out of 26); Sony scores 9.5/26 and Nintendo is at the bottom with 5.5/26. Apple, for reference, scores 7/26, the highest scoring company in ICT is Ericsson with 22/26.

The lack of interest in human rights is, of course equally visible in the consumer base - even in "progressive" subsets such as Era. The scores of the companies have hardly improved over the last couple of years showing that human rights risks and abuses are endemic to the mode of production itself, and that the producers either do not recognize the risks - or simply do not care in the race to keep prices 'low'.

Full scorecards linked below:
MICROSOFT: 13 out of 26 (score change from 2019: +4)
SONY: 9.5 out of 26 (not included in 2019)
NINTENDO: 5.5 out of 26 (score change: 0)

edit: The ICT index only covers ICT manufacturing firms - to be included a firm needs at least 20% of revenues from manufacturing to be included.
edit2: The index focuses on public information because access to such is what the UNGPs build on - the UNGPs outline that the division of labor between governments and firms is that states protect human rights and the duty of firms is to a) publicly commit to basic human rights principles b) carry out due diligence (risk assessments, be transparent about results) c) give access to "remedy" - which usually doesn't mean anything more than having channels were abuses can be reported. This division of labor is what firms lobby for, the logic being that supply chains need not be regulated as firms can be transparent about them and "market will decide". While people need any legitimization they can get to support these firms, what the index measures is the most basic things you have in terms of human rights due diligence, if you do not have these things in place you can be sure that there are severe transgressions occurring even though you have no oversight of what those issues are. There is no way you are a top performer in terms of actual human rights impacts if the basic are not in place - it simple does not happen. Thus, that logic is what the index measures:

Grounded in international and industry-specific standards on human rights and responsible business conduct, the CHRB Methodology focuses on companies' policies, processes, practices, as well as how they respond to serious allegations. This is done through the application of specific indicators across 6 Measurement Themes of different weights.

In its application, the Methodology relies on public information disclosed by companies on their websites, other platforms, or through the CHRB Disclosure Platform. The CHRB then uses that public information in its assessments to produce a transparent benchmark as a public good.

Click to shrink...

 

[Podge293]

Time to boycott console makers so

Especially Nintendo it seems

 

[Chairmanchuck (另一个我)]

Era:

 

[Deleted member 8593]

Always worth noting that these scores are based on public information:

Please note that the "Not met" labels in the Explanation boxes below do not necessarily mean that the company does not meet the requirements as they are described in the bullet point short text. Rather, it means that the analysts could not find information in public sources that met the requirements as described in full in the CHRB 2020 Methodology document. For example, a "Not met" under "General HRs Commitment", which is the first bullet point for indicator A.1.1, does not necessarily mean that the company does not have a general commitment to human rights. Rather, it means that the CHRB could not identify a public statement of policy in which the company commits to respecting human rights.

Click to shrink...

However, it is important that companies are singled out for stuff like this and pressured into making their commitments public. Nintendo is notoriously bad when it comes to this and it reflects in their score year after year.

 

[Peru]

Era:

Click to shrink...

As consumers of technology we're all guilty of that, we're all hypocrites to some level in participating in capitalist economy, but consumer level action is incredibly hard to shape into real power. We should educate ourselves, we should demand better, but the real responsibility lies in governments and authorities, and the most important thing we can to, I guess, is vote into power politicians more interested in regulation.

 

[Dan Thunder]

On the surface it looks pretty poor for most of them (and could well be) but the information sources aren't definitive in showing what these companies are actually doing.

However I don't think it's disputable that the majority of tech companies could do a lot more to ensure their products are made ethically and safely, the only question is whether consumers are willing to pay the premium that will come with that?

 

[My Blue Heaven]

My understanding is that despite the premium price put on its products Nintendo is the among the worst for an electronics manufacturer in managing labor issues in its supply chain, managing the presence of conflict minerals in its products and actual clear and transparent guidelines of their corporate social responsibilities.

It doesn't help that on the consumer side certain Nintendo products have taken an overall dive in quality. The Joycons are awful controllers and the kicker is that Nintendo likely has rot in its supply and manufacturing chains.

 

[Video Kojima]

NVIDIA at 4.5, Nintendo 5.5.
Absolutely horrendous. Why are we not forcing companies to stamp their score on their products.

 

[My Blue Heaven]

NVIDIA at 4.5
Absolutely horrendous. Why are we not forcing companies to stamp their score on their products.

Click to shrink...

Game enthusiasts don't demand better because they don't care how the sausage is made as long as they get a PS5 or the latest graphics card.

 

[Deleted member 14459]

Always worth noting that these scores are based on public information:



However, it is important that companies are singled out for stuff like this and pressured into making their commitments public. Nintendo is notoriously bad when it comes to this and it reflects in their score year after year.

Click to shrink...

All companies are contacted and invited to release the missing information once the initial stage of the analysis has been carried out.

 

[Palgan]

Systemic problem, not a company one and this should not be a surprise at this point. Still a shame of course and should actually be a reason to boycott, but won't work within the circumstances.

 

[Deleted member 68874]

I looked up the 2019 results to see if the companies have improved or not.

MS had 42.7/100
Nintendo had 12.7/100
Sony doesnt have a 2019 score.

 

[cw_sasuke]

Overall very low scores for pretty much all big players and im sure Covid this year didnt help the situation.
A more secretive company scoring low on something like this isnt too shocking but seeing all other companies with sub scores just shows that this is an overall industry/capitalism issue and no company is really better than other....they all use the same messed up process to profit.

I also dont think there is alot that a single company could do to change these common practices, they would all have to work together to apply pressure...but welp...shareholders happyness is more important than basic hum rights.

 

[EliR]

 

[Deleted member 14459]

Also wanted to add here that this year, because of COVID, they did not use the "full set" of indicators (instead what they call the core set)- which focuses more on performance incl. reported human rights abuses - but we know from previous year's index that this would not have "helped" the console manufacturers. Covid played no role in results (only in data collection), as 2020 results cover 2019 mostly, the report also outlines the change of score from previous year.

 

[WolfForager]

Era: If the next gen consoles cost more than €500, they're dead on arrival.

Also Era: The human rights records of the console companies are deplorable.

There's a reason Fairtrade goods are more expensive than standard good. I'm all for more expensive consoles if it means better humans rights for the workers in the supply chain, but unfortunately that sentiment isn't shared by the mass market.

 

[Mistouze]

I don't think boycotting actually works most of the time, but making a big stink about it on social media just might bring these issues to light in the general public.

 

[Deleted member 8593]

All companies are contacted and invited to release the missing information once the initial stage of the analysis has been carried out.

Click to shrink...

That's irrelevant to the point I was making. Not that I expect that these companies would fare much better if they were transparent but people should be aware of what the score actually means.

 

[Dan Thunder]

NVIDIA at 4.5, Nintendo 5.5.
Absolutely horrendous. Why are we not forcing companies to stamp their score on their products.

Click to shrink...

The information used to calculate these scores comes from public sources and not the companies themselves so there's an argument that the scores won't accurately reflect their commitments to ethical and safe manufacturing and supply chains.

EDIT: Which, let's be honest, probably wouldn't be great for most of them even if they did!

 

[Deleted member 14459]

I looked up the 2019 results to see if the companies have improved or not.

MS had 42.7/100
Nintendo had 12.7/100
Sony doesnt have a 2019 score.

Click to shrink...

This is not the same methodology - there are two separate indeces, what you quote is the so-called full set which goes to 100, that is measuring different things than the core set (which goes to 26)

 

[My Blue Heaven]

Era: If the console's cost more than €500 the consoles are dead on arrival.

Also Era: Human rights records of the console companies are deplorable.

There's a reason Fairtrade goods are more expensive than standard good. I'm all for more expensive consoles if it means better humans rights for the workers in the supply chain, but unfortunately that sentiment isn't shared by the mass market.

Click to shrink...

Removing exploitation in the supply and manufacturing chain would likely lead to a net better product even with a higher price. I would pay that but I understand that not many would.

 

[Zoon]

But they haven't said anything offensive on Twitter yet so there's no reason to boycott them.

 

[Adrifi]

OOF Apple 7/26

 

[My Blue Heaven]

I don't think boycotting actually works most of the time, but making a big stink about it on social media just might bring these issues to light in the general public.

Click to shrink...

The issue is that when confronted these companies usually say "We are making internal efforts to audit our supply chain, minimize labor exploitation etc." while not actually releasing any information to third parties about what they are doing.

AKA "we aren't doing shit"

 

[texhnolyze]

I don't think boycotting actually works most of the time, but making a big stink about it on social media just might bring these issues to light in the general public.

Click to shrink...

Absolutely.

And guess what? Even just replying to keep this thread afloat so that more industry people noticed it would help the cause even for a little.

 

[Samiya]

Something needs to done about these companies. Who will stand up to them?

 

[Podge293]

I looked up the 2019 results to see if the companies have improved or not.

MS had 42.7/100
Nintendo had 12.7/100
Sony doesnt have a 2019 score.

Click to shrink...

it also says it in the report linked in the first line of the OP

MS +4, Nintendo 0, Sony N/a

 

[My Blue Heaven]

Something needs to done about these companies. Who will stand up to them?

Click to shrink...

There aren't enough consumers that care about it. Government entities would need to demand they do better or basically shame them into doing better by forcing them to print CSR auditing scores on their products.

Corporations will not solve this problem on their own because their first motivation is profit.

 

[tapedeck]

Not a good look, not that I'm at all surprised.

 

[Samiya]

There aren't enough consumers that care about it. Government entities would need to demand they do better or basically shame them into doing better by forcing them to print CSR auditing scores on their products.

Corporations will not solve this problem on their own because their first motivation is profit.

Click to shrink...

I realize all of this, so what can be done? Can't we have governments in and simply punish these companies? Or shut them down if they continue to act like this?

Or are there other political forces that need to do something about the companies? Maybe strikes and protests? Revolution?

 

[Joni]

It would be more interesting if these scores reflected reality, and weren't influenced by these companies simply not having this information publicly available. In some cases, it is even a bit, you lose points because you didn't use the right word. Like Microsoft used the word "consistent with" and Sony's policy didn't state if they support unions in countries where unions aren't allowed under local law.

 

[Kolx]

Fuck all 3.

 

[Deleted member 5596]

Era: If the next gen consoles cost more than €500, they're dead on arrival.

Also Era: The human rights records of the console companies are deplorable.

There's a reason Fairtrade goods are more expensive than standard good. I'm all for more expensive consoles if it means better humans rights for the workers in the supply chain, but unfortunately that sentiment isn't shared by the mass market.

Click to shrink...

Is not like it's ' not shared by the mass market', the mass market can't afford it. Imagine thinking most people can easily buy a 500€ console + 80€ for each game in the current economic climate...

The same economic system that allows companies get away with trampling or ignoring outright human rights is the same that makes a 500€ product a luxury item. Fairtrade is nice and all, but is just gonna make more evident the reality that these products are beyond the reach of the mass market

The inequality gap is increasing around the world and the 2 economical crisis further raised it. Both statements are totally complementary and are symptomatic of the world we live in.

 

[Deleted member 14459]

I realize all of this, so what can be done? Can't we have governments in and simply punish these companies? Or shut them down if they continue to act like this?

Or are there other political forces that need to do something about the companies? Maybe strikes and protests? Revolution?

Click to shrink...

Depends what is being discussed. In terms of what the index measures - that can quite easily be regulated since it is mostly about transparency, public commitments and reporting; even access to remedy which is key here can be regulated quite effectively. But even access to remedy solves very little as we are talking about how many cents or tens of dollars a company could be liable for to pay out to victims' families etc. The underlying problem is that the whole model of production builds upon accumulation by dispossession.

 

[Deleted member 14459]

It would be more interesting if these scores reflected reality, and weren't influenced by these companies simply not having this information publicly available. In some cases, it is even a bit, you lose points because you didn't use the right word. Like Microsoft used the word "consistent with" and Sony's policy didn't state if they support unions in countries where unions aren't allowed under local law.

Click to shrink...

The choices of wording by the companies are not by mistake - as they are carefully chosen so that they do not become liable when transgressions happen. This is visible not least by the annual changes or non-changes - because if it was simply about semantics they would change those wordings. The scores reflects the reality that the industry has created - ie. the whole argument for non-regulation of the supply chain builds on the insistence of companies that they do not need to be regulated because they will voluntarily release information so that the "market can decide". That is the core division of labor of the UN Guiding Principles - the role of the state is to protect human rights, the role of companies is to identify and remedy risks and release for the market information about said risks. That division of labor is exactly what the ICT industry has diligently lobbied for. I can say from many years of work with human rights that the reality is worse than the lack of commitment, policies and reports.

But look deep into yourselves, would it really change how you feel and how you consume if the metrics were measuring the pounds of flesh sacrificed by workers or the gallons of blood spilled in the streets during strikes? People would be here arguing how many pounds of flesh are acceptable...

 

[kurt]

What about google?

 

[Fiksi]

Not the most exciting scores when the top one barely hits 50%. I feel like if the companies could go higher by just being more transparent they would do so?

 

[Deleted member 14459]

Not the most exciting scores when the top one barely hits 50%. I feel like if the companies could go higher by just being more transparent they would do so?

Click to shrink...

You can ask then - why year after year they fail to both change the wordings so that they would comply with UNGPs or why they are not being transparent? Seems like an easy win for companies so that they can boast about leading performance regarding human rights...

 

[Deleted member 14459]

What about google?

Click to shrink...

The ICT index only covers ICT manufacturing firms - they need to get at least 20% of revenues from manufacturing to be included.

 

[captainmal01]

Wish AMD was present so I could see how they fair.

I can do without a console or Nvidia GPU, but it would be nice to be able to still game somehow.

 

[CaviarMeths]

God, it's infuriating how Nintendo especially just continues to not give one single fuck about human rights. I wish their shareholders would apply more pressure here, but I'm sure they don't give a fuck either.

 

[Messofanego]

Maybe not use slave labour to manufacture your consoles? If you care at all about your score going up.

[BBC] In China, Uighurs 'moved into factory forced labour' for foreign brands Apple, Google, Microsoft, Nintendo, Sony

It was recommended that I cross post this from EtcetEra for awareness, particularly as we move towards a new generation of consoles. Letting people make informed decisions about where they're willing to put their money is the best thing anyone can do here. Here's the latest on the various...

www.resetera.com

Much like social media platforms are being put to task by governments such as Facebook, Twitter, these conglomerate giants like Microsoft, Sony, Nintendo, AMD, Nvidia, etc deserve to be put into hearings for their human rights abuses.

Consumers are not going to care as much, but pressure and awareness needs to be put on political representatives to question and demand better from these companies.

 

[Jade1962]

On the surface it looks pretty poor for most of them (and could well be) but the information sources aren't definitive in showing what these companies are actually doing.

However I don't think it's disputable that the majority of tech companies could do a lot more to ensure their products are made ethically and safely, the only question is whether consumers are willing to pay the premium that will come with that?

Click to shrink...

They won't be.

 

[seroun]

I like how the line of the topic is "Ah, people won't like paying more from fairly manufactured products".

It's not, like, you know, most people are getting fair wages to buy those products in the first place... maybe if the was a lesser inequality gap then..? I don't know, just a thought!

 

[UltimusXI]

I like how the line of the topic is "Ah, people won't like paying more from fairly manufactured products".

It's not, like, you know, most people are getting fair wages to buy those products in the first place... maybe if the was a lesser inequality gap then..? I don't know, just a thought!

Click to shrink...

However inequal the gap is in western countries, I don't think it compares to the wages / working conditions in countries where the products are made. If someone can afford to pay $399 for a console now, I'm sure they can afford to pay $ 449 for a console that's manufactured more fairly if they just save up an additional (couple of) month(s).

 

[seroun]

However inequal the gap is in western countries, I don't think it compares to the wages / working conditions in countries where the products are made. If someone can afford to pay $399 for a console now, I'm sure they can afford to pay $ 449 for a console that's manufactured more fairly if they just save up an additional (couple of) month(s).

Click to shrink...

I wasn't comparing the wages in the west to the wages in underdeveloped countries.

I am saying that: they can manufacture the consoles ethically, and as you guys say, there will be an increase in price. Less people will pay for the product, which is alright. The jump won't be 399 to 449, that's for sure. And not everybody can save, which is the whole point. I want every industry producing fairly, but wages have to increase for that, both for the people who buy the products and for the people who manufacture those products. You can't speak about producing fairly while expecting a father/mother/tutor that gets 1200€ a month with 2 children to gift them a playstation, Switch, xbox or what have you. That simply doesn't work.

 

[julia crawford]

It's hard to have a grasp of what is a median score and what would be a good score.

 

[nelsonroyale]

Its systemic.

Games is probably my biggest weakspot in terms of my purchasing ethics...but ethical consumption as an individual pursuit has its limits. Probably need to see the collapse of the current growth economic regime, or at least severe damage to it over the next century with climatic impacts and resource depletion ramping up. Civic society at the moment in developing countries is just incapable of exerting the kind of pressure that will make companies fundamentally change their ways. I think we can make a difference (and I say this as a climate change and nature activist), but paradigm shift is wickedly hard, and that is what we need to not have to deal with labour and environmental issues in a fragmented way, in a fundamentally hostile environment for change.

 

[GrrImAFridge]

Microsoft making an utterly empty promise to conduct an investigation into its manufacturing pipeline was such a simple PR win that I'm a little surprised nobody else followed suit.

 

[My Blue Heaven]

I realize all of this, so what can be done? Can't we have governments in and simply punish these companies? Or shut them down if they continue to act like this?

Or are there other political forces that need to do something about the companies? Maybe strikes and protests? Revolution?

Click to shrink...

Revolution over...luxury consumer goods? What? No. Governments have to force them or shame them to be better, period.