2026.08.18 · Business, human rights and supply chains
The Geneva Center for Business and Human Rights (GCBHR) was established in 2019 at the University of Geneva’s School of Economics and Management. It combines research, engagement and teaching to examine how human rights can become part of business operations. GCBHR’s official introduction
Our discussion on the morning of 18 August moved from recruitment fees to rubber, cobalt and cocoa supply chains. It also covered fieldwork, management resistance and impact assessment. The broad responsibility to respect human rights became a series of concrete decisions: who pays a fee, whether a worker can use a complaints process and how a purchasing arrangement affects income.
Debt can begin before the first day of work
Recruitment fees provided an early example. A worker who pays intermediaries, travel costs or other charges to obtain a job may arrive already in debt. That burden can constrain their choices when conditions are poor.
The speaker discussed the Employer Pays Principle as an operational commitment. A company needs standards, a recruitment budget and a conversation with intermediaries about how the arrangement will work.
A policy saying that workers should not pay does not establish where costs actually fall. If fees have already been charged, the company also needs to understand their nature, how they were collected and what remedial action is possible.
This moves the beginning of the risk beyond the factory gate. The process through which a person obtains employment can shape their position throughout the job.
A complaints box is not proof of access
One particularly clear example concerned a complaints box placed beside a manager’s seat. A channel may formally exist while workers remain afraid to approach it.
A hotline available only in English creates a different barrier when workers use other languages. In both cases, the design of the service determines who can use it.
The discussion therefore looked beyond the existence of a policy. Do people know about the channel? Can they understand it? Do they fear retaliation? Does someone respond?
Administrative access can have similar obstacles. People may lack transport, time or help with documents, even when a procedure exists. Local partners and practical support can make the difference between formal availability and actual use.
Rubber purchasing and incentives to preserve forests
Asked how the centre finds cases, the speaker discussed Veja’s rubber sourcing in the Brazilian Amazon. The analytical interest was in how purchasing arrangements connect forest conservation with producers’ livelihoods.
The model described combined a price for rubber with incentives linked to avoiding deforestation and monitoring information. The research question was therefore about the effect of prices and conditions on people’s choices.
Environmental and human rights concerns meet within the same supply chain. Maintaining a forest is connected to whether communities have a viable source of income.
The case invited attention to actual earnings, working practices and continuity. A sustainability claim is a starting point for investigation; the relevant question is what the arrangement changes for the people involved.
Cobalt and informal mining
A second example concerned artisanal and small-scale mining in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The speaker explained that materials can mix at different points in a supply chain, making a simple statement about preferred sourcing insufficient.
The discussion considered efforts to bring informal mining into more organised arrangements through safety conditions, purchasing commitments and pricing. This involves engaging with the people and work already present in the supply chain.
The details cannot be transferred unchanged from one sector to another. Rubber, cocoa and minerals have different production systems. What can be carried across is the evaluation question: how does an intervention affect income, working conditions and safety?
Begin fieldwork with an ordinary day
The explanation of research methods was especially useful. The speaker described gathering information from workers, communities, public authorities, NGOs and industry specialists rather than relying on one representative.
Question design matters. Beginning with a direct accusation can produce guarded answers. Asking about an ordinary day—when someone leaves home, works, returns or carries out household tasks—may reveal conditions the researcher had not anticipated.
Some burdens are also easier to miss than others. Activities recognised as production may receive attention while carrying water, caring responsibilities or household work remain less visible. Narrow categories can obscure differences in how time and physical effort are distributed.
Fieldwork therefore needs to be capable of changing the researcher’s assumptions. It should do more than supply quotations for a conclusion already reached.
Bringing human rights into a management decision
The audience asked how to persuade companies accustomed to established practices. The speaker discussed possible points of influence through investors, boards, regulation, reputation and operations.
Their relevance depends on the company and sector. A useful response begins with an understanding of the actual risk and the people who can influence a decision.
Some changes can enter existing processes, such as supplier selection, training or purchasing discussions. That makes human rights part of ordinary management rather than a separate statement of aspiration.
The speaker did not suggest that every improvement would automatically pay for itself. Better conditions require investment. Some changes may reduce turnover or improve capability; others need to be understood as responsibilities that carry real costs.
Pay provides another example of the need for precision. A statutory minimum and a living-wage benchmark ask different questions. An assessment should make clear which standard is being used and what conditions it considers.
Measuring change before and after a project
An audience question about student projects brought impact assessment into the discussion. The response proposed a structured sequence: establish a baseline, explain the intervention, examine subsequent change and consider other factors that may have contributed.
Income, waste or a specific capability might be relevant, depending on the problem. Attendance at an activity alone does not establish a lasting improvement.
Questions about the end of public funding led to exit planning: what capability remains locally, who can continue the work and whether resources depend too heavily on a single source.
This connected back to the supply-chain examples. In each case, the question is whether an intervention changes conditions in a way that can last.
The visit described research as a continuing exchange: practical problems lead to fieldwork, evidence informs dialogue, and operational constraints help test proposed solutions. GCBHR’s published methodology likewise links research, engagement and teaching while explaining how it protects research independence. GCBHR’s working method