Skip to main

Impact case study database

The impact case study database allows you to browse and search for impact case studies submitted to the REF 2021. Use the search and filters below to find the impact case studies you are looking for.

Search and filter

Filter by

  • University of Greenwich
   None selected
  • 18 - Law
   None selected
   None selected
   None selected
   None selected
   None selected
   None selected
Waiting for server
Download currently selected sections for currently selected case studies (spreadsheet) (generating)
Download currently selected case study PDFs (zip) (generating)
Download tags for the currently selected case studies (spreadsheet) (generating)
Currently displaying text from case study section
Showing impact case studies 1 to 2 of 2
Submitting institution
University of Greenwich
Unit of assessment
18 - Law
Summary impact type
Societal
Is this case study continued from a case study submitted in 2014?
No

1. Summary of the impact

The use of schools and university buildings by military forces is harmful for students and staff in armed conflict zones and renders them vulnerable to attack by opposing forces. In partnership with the Global Coalition to Protect Education from Attack (GCPEA), Haines, University of Greenwich chair of Public International Law, has produced International Guidelines for the use of military forces to help reduce the military use of schools and universities. These have now (31 December 2020) been endorsed by 106 States, have obtained wide support within the United Nations (UN) and have been praised by several influential world leaders. Importantly, they have also been adopted by a number of Armed Non-State Actors active in current Non-International Armed Conflicts (NIACs). The Guidelines have made a significant contribution to reducing the use of schools and universities during armed conflicts, as exemplified in Yemen, for example, which had 160 reported incidents in 2015 but only just over eighty by 2018. They have also influenced the African Union’s Peace and Security Council and the European Commission who called for their members to abide by the Guidelines’ contents.

2. Underpinning research

Students and education staff have been killed, injured and traumatised, and school and university buildings damaged and destroyed during many armed conflicts that have occurred in recent years. Girls and women have been particularly targeted because of their gender, not only as victims of sexual violence but also by armed groups opposed to female education. In addition, the use of schools and universities for military purposes by either side in a conflict has often prevented students from accessing education and rendered the buildings targets of attack by opposing forces. This became such a significant feature of particular concern to civil society organisations and UN specialised agencies that they began to seek ways of mitigating its worst effects. In 2010 responding to such concerns, a number of UN agencies (UNICEF, UNHCR, UNESCO) and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) from fields such as education (eg Education Above All), child protection (Save the Children) and human rights (Human Rights Watch), established the GCPEA and charged it with working towards reducing military use of educational facilities. The military use of schools, not itself invariably unlawful, deprives educational institutions of protected civilian status under IHL and renders them vulnerable to legitimate attack.

To assist with this work, in late-2011/early-2012 GCPEA sought the advice and participation of a military and legal specialist. It approached Steven Haines, whose background and ideas seemed ideally suited to the role the Global Coalition envisaged such a specialist fulfilling. Haines’s prior expertise in International Humanitarian Law (IHL) had been built on years of experience, both theoretical (including teaching in the Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights and chairing the Editorial Board of the UK’s official Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict – OUP, 2004) and practical (he was previously a serving senior officer in the UK’s Armed Forces who had deployed into the Balkans and into Sierra Leone towards the end of its civil war in 2001; he had also worked within the Central Policy Staff in the UK’s Ministry of Defence).

This knowledge and experience has enabled Haines to play a leading and influential role in the drafting of the Guidelines on the Protection of Schools and Universities from Military Use in Armed Conflict, work that he has undertaken since his appointment at the university in October 2012.

During preliminary discussions with GCPEA representatives in Geneva in 2012, Haines identified the need for ‘soft law’ guidelines for use by military forces in zones of armed conflict. The soft law guidelines are termed as such by not in themselves being legally binding, by not generating new binding legal obligations for States, and being more easily and effectively crafted than an equivalent instrument of conventional law. This approach was geared entirely to be most effective in reducing the use of schools and university buildings by military forces and, thus, to reduce the likelihood of them being regarded as military objectives subject to legitimate targeting by opposing belligerent forces. For such guidelines to have real impact, they would need to be potentially effective in practice but also of a nature that States and Armed Non-State Actors (ANSAs) would be prepared to adopt/endorse them. Too great a restriction placed on military forces’ lawful options in armed conflict would deter them from supporting and adopting guidelines with that in mind.

The specialist legal and military understanding Haines possessed meant that he fully appreciated that guidelines that met the remit would require a subtlety of approach based on both a sound understanding and interpretation of the relevant law and an appreciation of relevant military and official approaches to normative development. Haines was chosen by GCPEA to lead the production of suitable guidelines that would be acceptable to those who would be invited to adopt them. His methodology for determining the fine points of the guidelines was to produce an initial draft which he would then expose to a critical process of review by an appropriately constituted ‘focus group’ of military and government officials, specialist lawyers, civil society representatives (including those representing interests of ANSAs), representatives of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). The ICRC’s involvement was vital for international legitimacy, given its role as the guardian of IHL. (see https://www.icrc.org/en/document/safe-schools-declaration-and-guidelines-protecting-schools-and-universities-military-use for their position on the Guidelines).

Haines produced the initial draft in October 2012, in advance of a workshop consisting of the invited ‘focus group’ convened at Chateau Lucens in the Canton of Vaud, Switzerland, in November 2012. Between that workshop and May 2013, Haines developed a total of four iterations of the guidelines, each robustly critiqued by the ‘focus group’. He arrived at the final version, agreed by consensus within the group, in June 2013. It was regarded by all concerned as a pragmatic and innovative document that identified a militarily reasonable approach to tactical decision-making in relation to the use of schools. While not imposing any additional legal restraints on military forces’ use of schools, it did suggest ways in which the negative effects of such use might be mitigated for ultimate military and societal advantage. The result was a document that could be applied by the armed forces of States as well as members of the fighting forces of ANSAs. It was generic, in being applicable in both International Armed Conflicts (IACs) and NIACs. The guidelines were fully compliant with existing IHL. The default source was 1977 Additional Protocol I to the 1949 Geneva Conventions but the guidelines were also checked for compliance with Additional Protocol II and with Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions. The resultant document was brief (6 guidelines over two pages of A4), easily understood by military forces, allowed for pragmatism in application, and has proved to be readily adoptable by policy decision-makers in government. The first two guidelines cover military use itself, guidelines 3 and 4 deal with precautions and approaches to attack when this proves necessary, the 5th deals with the security and protection of schools by military forces, and guideline 6 covers the means of promulgation within military forces.

The final version was published by GCPEA in July 2013 as The Draft Lucens Guidelines on the Protection of Schools and Universities from Military Use in Armed Conflict (3.1) and was used for successful advocacy within Geneva, being adopted by the Norwegian and Argentine Missions to the UN. Both States jointly launched the Guidelines internationally at an all-States diplomatic conference in Oslo in May 2015. They form the core of the Safe Schools Declaration (SSD), which is a document devised under Norwegian Foreign Ministry auspices as a diplomatic vehicle for the Guidelines. The endorsement of the SSD is the means by which States signal their endorsement of the Guidelines themselves. The SSD was drafted for the specific purpose of international advocacy for the Guidelines.

In 2014, Haines wrote a brief account of the production and purpose of the Lucens Guidelines (3.2), published by GCPEA. However, a full account of the process of developing the Guidelines has since been published (3.3). This provides a full narrative account of the production of the Guidelines, the methodology used in their drafting, their incorporation in the SSD and the impact that they have had at both the diplomatic and operational/tactical military levels.

3. References to the research

  1. Draft Lucens Guidelines on the Protection of Schools and Universities from Military Use in Armed Conflict (New York: GCPEA, 2013) available on the GCPEA website at documents_draft_lucens_guidelines.pdf (protectingeducation.org).

  2. S Haines, ‘Military Use of Schools and Universities: Changing Behaviour’, in M Richmond (Ed), Education Under Attack 2014 (New York: Global Coalition to Protect Education from Attack, 2014) (ISBN: 978-0-9910164-5-7), pp.103-112. Available online at Education Under Attack 2014 - Global Coalition to Protect Education from Attack (protectingeducation.org).

  3. S Haines, ‘Developing International Guidelines for Protecting Schools and Universities from Military Use during Armed Conflict’ in International Law Studies, Vol.97 (2021). https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/ils/vol97/iss1/28/ Peer reviewed and accepted for publication by International Law Studies 1 Dec 2020, but publication delayed to early 2021 due to Covid 19. In light of this, article shared via university repository in Dec 2020, as well as published 11 Dec 20 by the GCPEA Developing International Guidelines for Protecting Schools and Universities from Military Use during Armed Conflict - Global Coalition to Protect Education from Attack (protectingeducation.org)

4. Details of the impact

The immediate output of the research conducted between October 2012 and June 2013 was the Lucens Guidelines (3.1). This document was published on the GCPEA website (see Safe Schools Declaration and Guidelines on Military Use – Safe Schools Declaration (protectingeducation.org)) and also reproduced in hard copy for wide dissemination to governments and militaries worldwide. The Guidelines are the route to a range of high level international diplomatic and military impacts.

More than 100 States have endorsed the Guidelines produced by Haines. Since its launch in 2015, 106 States have endorsed the Guidelines/SSD. The Norwegian Foreign Ministry is the official depository for State endorsements and the up to date list is reproduced on the GCPEA website at: Endorsement – Safe Schools Declaration (protectingeducation.org) . There has been substantial engagement with the Guidelines, principally within the UN system, with a number of UN Security Council open debates (on Children and Armed Conflict) as well as General Assembly debates featuring calls for the Guidelines to be universally adopted. The engagement has often been at the highest level, with the then French President Hollande personally announcing French endorsement in 2017 (5.1) and the UK’s then Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson announcing UK endorsement at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Conference in 2019 (5.2). The former prime ministers of Australia and the UK (Julia Gillard and Gordon Brown) have also championed the Guidelines internationally (5.3 and 5.4). While this demonstrates an impressive international profile for the Guidelines – and certainly encourages endorsement by a steadily increasing number of States – what really matters is the extent to which they are having an effect during conflict, on the ground where it actually matters the most. The Guidelines and the SSD are now reviewed formally every two years at international diplomatic conferences hosted by different States. The First Safe Schools Conference was the launch conference in Oslo hosted by Norway in 2015, which was addressed by Ziauddin Yousafzai (Malala’s father) ( 5.8). The Second was hosted by the Ministers of Foreign Affairs and Defence of Argentina in Buenos Aires in 2017 ( 5.9). The Third was hosted by Spain in Palma, Mallorca in 2019 (with the closing address delivered by Her Majesty Queen Letizia of Spain) ( 5.10).

The Guidelines have made a significant contribution in the decrease of schools and universities being used by the military during armed conflicts. In October 2019, GCPEA published an account of the Practical Impact of the Safe Schools Declaration (5.5). This report was based on substantial and significant data provided principally by UN agencies, NGOs and the media, as well as by States. It showed that the majority of reported incidents of military use of schools and universities had declined between 2015 and 2018 in the totality of States that had both endorsed the SSD in 2015 and experienced armed conflict during the same period: Afghanistan, the Central African Republic, Iraq, Kenya, Lebanon, Mozambique, Niger, Nigeria, Palestine, Somalia, South Sudan, and Sudan. It is important to note that this data capture concentrated on States that had endorsed the SSD/Guidelines in 2015 and, for that reason, neither Syria nor Yemen were included in the survey. Yemen did subsequently endorse the SSD in Oct 2017, however, and in 2019 the Group of Experts on Yemen informed the Human Rights Council in Geneva that “ sources reported that the Yemeni armed forces have commenced to withdraw from some schools as per the commitments taken under the Safe Schools Declaration (5.6).” Additionally, the Yemeni Ministry of Education established a Safe Schools Committee in 2018 and overall, reported incidents in the country had halved (near 160 in 2015 to just over 80 by 2018).

The UN stopped using educational institutions for military purposes and started to promote and adhere to the Guidelines. The Lucens Guidelines (3.1) had been presented to the Committee on the Rights of the Child in June 2013 (two years before their official launch in Oslo in 2015) and, since then, UN treaty bodies have made frequent recommendations on strengthening protections for schools from military use. These had focused on sixteen States in all, including the Central African Republic, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Pakistan, and Thailand. In June 2015, a month after the official launch of the SSD, and again in July 2018 the UN Security Council had encouraged all member states ‘to take concrete measures to deter the use of schools by armed forces and armed groups. By the time of the launch, the UN’s Department of Peacekeeping Operations had already developed a child protection policy banning the use of educational facilities by peacekeepers. When Haines first became engaged with GCPEA in early 2012, he was aware that the UN had routinely used abandoned schools for UN force purposes. He had himself witnessed the United Nations Mission in Sierra Leone using a school as a reception base for disarming child soldiers. Forces on UN operations today, however, are under an obligation to promote and adhere to the Guidelines; GCPEA has stated that there have been no reported incidents of UN military forces using schools or universities since early 2017, per their Impact Report of Oct 2019 (5.5).

High-level UN officials have frequently expressed support for the SSD/Guidelines. They include UN Secretary-General António Guterres (who urged all States to endorse the SSD/Guidelines in his 2018 and 2019 annual reports on Children and Armed Conflict); the Secretary-General’s Special Representative for Children and Armed Conflict, Virginia Gamba (who regularly calls for endorsement of the SSD/Guidelines and conducts bilateral advocacy with States to encourage endorsement and implementation), and UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein (who recommended endorsement in his OHCHR report on Protecting the Rights of the Child in Humanitarian Settings) (5.5).

Furthermore, the SSD (containing the Guidelines) has been highlighted during a number of UN Security Council Open Debates on the Protection of Civilians, on Children and Armed Conflict, and on Women, Peace, and Security, as well as at the Human Rights Council. GCPEA estimates that around fifty States delivered approximately 230 individual statements in these contexts positively referencing the SSD between 2017 and 2019 (5.5).

The Guidelines have also had an impact on distinguished organisations in Africa and Europe. The African Union’s Peace and Security Council has welcomed the SSD/Guidelines, urging all AU member States to endorse and strengthen support for the Guidelines, and called on members to ‘comply with International Humanitarian Law and ensure that schools are not used for military purposes’. In its first ‘Education in Emergencies’ policy communication, the European Commission has voiced support for the SSD/Guidelines, announced that the European Union ‘will support initiatives to promote and roll out the SSD’ and acknowledges that military use of schools increases violence in educational settings, negatively affecting access to education (5.5).

The momentum from the guidelines continues. Five years after their launch, in May 2020, the UN General Assembly voted unanimously to set 9 September annually as the UN’s International Day for Protecting Education in Armed Conflict, a decision inspired by the Guidelines and the SSD. A UN Security Council Open Debate on Children in Armed Conflict took place the day after the first of these was marked in 2020, in which the guidelines were highlighted as a significant development for ensuring protection of education in conflict situations going forwards (5.7). For further corroboration of Haines’ contribution in bringing these impacts to this point, see 5.11.

5. Sources to corroborate the impact

  1. President Hollande’s announcement of French endorsement: https://www.hrw.org/news/2017/02/21/france-positive-move-protect-schools

  2. UK Government press release on the Foreign Secretary’s endorsement of the Guidelines and SSD: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/foreign-secretary-launches-platform-for-girls-education

  3. Feb 2015 statement by Julia Gillard (former Australian Prime Minister) on the abduction of students in South Sudan (in which she urged the application of the International Guidelines: https://www.globalpartnership.org/news-and-media/news/statement-julia-gillard-abduction-students-south-sudan

  4. ‘OpEd’ article by Gordon Brown (former UK Prime Minister and UN Special Envoy on Global Education), published 2014 after Norwegian adoption of the Lucens Guidelines but before launch of Safe Schools Declaration: G Brown, ‘Schools on the Frontline: After the damage done in Gaza, we must ensure places of education are never targeted in conflicts’, The Guardian, Monday 28 Jul 2014 (Brown pointed to the work of GCPEA and commended the then Lucens Guidelines, urging all UN member states to endorse). See We must ensure that schools are never targeted in armed conflict | Gaza | The Guardian

  5. GCPEA’s report on Guidelines’ impact: http://protectingeducation.org/wp-content/uploads/documents/documents_ssd_fact_sheet_october_2019.pdf). Evidence also provided in the Human Rights Watch publication, Protecting Schools from Military Use: Laws, Policies and Military Doctrine (New York, Human Rights Watch, May 2019) https://www.hrw.org/report/2019/05/27/protecting-schools-military-use/law-policy-and-military-doctrine.

  6. Report of the detailed findings of the Group of Eminent International and Regional Experts on Yemen, A/HRC/42/CRP.1, Sep 3, 2019, at Para. 722. See A/HRC/42/CRP.1 (ohchr.org)

  7. Recording of the two-hour UN Security Council Open Debate on Children in Armed Conflict on 10 Sep 2020, following the previous day’s UN International Day on the Protection of Education in Armed Conflict. This debate is fully recorded, the relevant elements to this ICS are the opening statements, including that by Ms Virginia Gamba, UN Special Representative on Children and Armed Conflict, and then, at 1 Hour 47 Minutes 10 Seconds, the UK Representative’s Statement making specific comment on the Guidelines. See link: http://webtv.un.org/search/children-and-armed-conflict-attacks-against-schools-as-a-grave-violation-of-children’s-rights-security-council-8756th-meeting/6189598969001/?term=&lan=English&cat=Meetings%2FEvents&sort=date

  8. First Safe Schools Conference in Oslo in 2015: https://www.regjeringen.no/en/aktuelt/oslo-conference-on-safe-schools/id2412453/ . Recording of Ziauddin Yousafzai (Malala’s father) speech at the Conference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JgEqf5R5-cY

  9. Second Safe Schools Conference, Buenos Aires 2017: http://protectingeducation.org/sites/default/files/documents/buenos_aires_conference_chairs_summary.pdf

  10. UNESCO statement on Third Safe Schools Conference, Palma, 2019: https://en.unesco.org/events/third-international-conference-safe-schools

  11. Corroborator contacts: (a) Ms Diya Nijhowne, Chief Executive, GCPEA; (b) Ms Zama Neff, Head of the Children’s Rights Division, Human Rights Watch; (c) Ms Veronique Aubert, Lead on Children and Armed Conflict, Save the Children (UK)

Submitting institution
University of Greenwich
Unit of assessment
18 - Law
Summary impact type
Societal
Is this case study continued from a case study submitted in 2014?
No

1. Summary of the impact

There are over 40 million people in modern slavery (24.9m in forced labour) producing goods and providing services through global supply chains. Martin-Ortega’s work on public procurement, human rights and due diligence has been instrumental for the development, both in the UK and internationally, of public buyers’ responsibilities towards the human rights of those working in their supply chains. Her research has had a decisive impact on national and international law and policy development (Pathway 1); UK and international public buyers’ supply chain due diligence practices to prevent modern slavery and human rights abuses (Pathway 2) and civil society’s efforts to promote transparency in the electronics industry, improve working conditions for thousands of workers and provide remediation for violations (Pathway 3).

2. Underpinning research

Public procurement accounts for 12% of GDP in OECD countries and 20-30% in developing countries. The public sector has great potential to influence business behaviours, for example by leading demand for responsibly produced and delivered goods and services. Historically, significantly more attention has been given to the behaviour of private businesses rather than the public sector.

During the impact period Martin-Ortega’s work has focused on human rights due diligence in supply chains. This includes the roles and obligations of public buyers towards those who produce the goods and services they buy. Her publications are among the first in the world to address the topic of public procurement and human rights [3.5, 3.4, 3.3], and her edited collection [3.1] remains the only volume specifically covering the subject. She has pioneered research at national and international level which has evidenced the incoherence in policy between private and public responsibilities despite the commonality between their supply chains which jeopardises states’ compliance with their duty to protect and promote human rights. Martin-Ortega’s work has demonstrated how public purchasing power can be harnessed to protect human rights in global supply chains [3.2, 3.3, 3.4]. Martin-Ortega’s research has assisted public buyers in bringing their procurement practices into line with international business and human rights commitments (e.g. UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights; Sustainable Development Goals). It has shown how corporate human rights due diligence can apply in public supply chains. Her research has provided: 1) the basis for using public procurement as a social policy tool for implementation of the state duty to protect human rights; 2) a theoretical framework for obligations on public buyers to identify, prevent, mitigate and remediate human rights violations in their supply chain; and 3) specific tools for public buyers to apply in their purchasing processes to address human rights including the imposition of supply chain due diligence and remediation. Her research has broad application to all global supply chains and human rights violations associated with them, but focused work has been devoted to the electronics supply chain as a model of how to mitigate and remediate health and safety risks and modern slavery [3.1, 3.5]. The exponentially expanding electronics industry currently accounts for approximately 18 million workers of which 80-90% have temporary contracts during peak production periods suggesting many are migrant workers vulnerable to exploitation. Martin-Ortega’s research helped establish the basis for the creation and development of the international organisation Electronics Watch (EW) and its work with public buyers and their suppliers.

A small part of the underpinning research was conducted in collaboration with Dr. Opi Outhwaite at the University of Greenwich (2014-2016).

3. References to the research

[1] Martin-Ortega & Methven O’Brien (co-ed)(2019), Public Procurement and Human Rights: Risks, Dilemmas and Opportunities of the State as a Buyer (Edward Elgar). ISBN:9781788116305. First and currently only book on specific topic. The publisher has requested a follow up volume.

[2] Martin-Ortega (2018),’Public Procurement as a Tool for the Protection and Promotion of Human Rights: a Study of Collaboration, Due Diligence and Leverage in the Electronics Industry’, Business and Human Rights Journal 3(1): 75-95. https://doi.org/10.1017/bhj.2017.35 [REF2 Submission - Identifier 19004]. Widely cited by scholars working on human rights, procurement, business and human rights and international organisations (OSCE, ILO) and civil society.

[3] Martin-Ortega (2017),‘Modern Slavery and Human Rights Risks in Global Supply Chains: The Role of Public Buyers’, Global Policy, 8(4): 512-52. https://doi.org/10.1111/1758-5899.12501. Credited in the UK to have started the government and public sector buyers’ attention to the topic.

[4] Martin-Ortega, Outhwaite & Rook (2015),’Buying power and working conditions in the electronics supply chain: legal options for socially responsible public procurement’, International Journal of Human Rights, 19(3): 341-368, https://doi.org/10.1080/13642987.2015.1029295. Served as a basis for the Electronics Watch model.

[5] Martin-Ortega (2014), “Human Rights Due Diligence for Corporations: From Voluntary Standards to Hard Law at Last?”, Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights, 32(1): 44-74. https://doi.org/10.1177/016934411403200104. Widely cited both at policy level, e.g. UN Special Rapporteur on Health (UN Doc. A/69/299, 2014, p.13, fn 36-37).

[6] European Parliament, Directorate-General for External Policies (June, 2020), ‘EU human rights due diligence legislation: Monitoring, enforcement and access to justice for victims’- Human Rights Due Diligence Legislation -Options for the EU: Briefing 2 (authored by Methven O’Brien & Martin-Ortega). Served as basis for the European Parliament position in the matter.

4. Details of the impact

Martin-Ortega’s research on human rights due diligence [3.5, 3.6], public procurement and human rights [3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4] and the electronics industry [3.2, 3.4] has led public procurement professionals, policy makers at national and international level to address their human rights’ impact through three different pathways:

Pathway 1: Impact on public policy and normative developments: Shaping the roles and legal responsibilities of public bodies towards the human rights of those in their supply chain and mainstreaming human rights due diligence.

UK Parliament, Government and advisory bodies:

  • Public Procurement Note-Tackling Modern Slavery in Government Supply Chains (PPN 05/19, Cabinet Office, September 2019) mandates all Central Government Departments, Executive Agencies and Non-Departmental Public Bodies to follow guidance expressly acknowledged to be based on her work [5.1].

  • Influenced the government’s own decision to publish its Modern Slavery Statement covering around £50 billion of annual spending (March 2020) [5.2], providing feedback on its draft to the Home Office Modern Slavery Unit.

  • Instrumental in the commitment by the UK government (September 2020), to widen the scope of the Modern Slavery Act (2015) (MSA) to include public sector authorities among those having to produce a Modern Slavery Statement [5.2]

  • Research referenced in policy development by UK Joint Parliamentary Committee on Human Rights [5.3] and the UK Anti-Slavery Commissioner [ website].

  • Work has been used by peers in the House of Lords, where she has participated in 4 discussions on modern slavery in public supply chains [5.4].

  • Influenced the recommendations of the Independent Review of the MSA. Its Final Report 2019 recommended the review of the law as proposed in her research [5.4].

International:

  • Policy Brief and presentation of recommendations (June 2020) [3.6] served as a basis of the European Parliament’s recommendations to the Commission on corporate due diligence and corporate accountability for EU companies and companies operating in and from the single market [5.5; 5.6].

  • Work referenced by OECD [5.9] and OSCE [5.8, Pathway 2]. Speaker and chair in the International Conference on Tackling Modern Slavery, Forced Labour and Human Trafficking in Public Procurement in Supply Chains (UK Government and OSCE Office of the Special Representative for Combating Trafficking in Human Beings, in partnership with governments of Australia, Canada, New Zealand, USA, ILO and OECD, March 2019), where international commitments and policy were established.

  • Commissioned by the ILO to draft Policy and Advocacy strategy on Fair Labour Recruitment and Public Procurement (first draft delivered in 2020; launch postponed due to COVID).

Pathway 2: Impact on professional bodies, public sector agencies, practitioners and delivery of professional services: Changing organisation’s policies and professionals’ buying practices and development of specific tools to protect and promote human rights in their supply chain.

Higher Education Sector:

  • Impact on professional practice through engagement and guidance Higher Education Procurement Association (HEPA) and procurement consortia LUPC and APUC [5.6; 5.7].

  • Transformed sector’s response to the MSA [s. 54 Transparency in Supply Chains] determining that universities fall within the scope of the law [3.3 & research briefs], propelling the publication of MS Statements [5.6].

  • Provided model procedures for the production of MS statements by drafting LUPC’s statement, producing HEPA Guidance (2018, updated 2019) and universities compliance reports ( Martin-Ortega & Islam, 2017; Martin-Ortega & Krupinska, 2018). LUPC’s was the first Higher Education statement, prompting 155 universities to produce their statements corresponding to the following financial year (2017/2018), which were encouraged by HEPA’s to refer Martin-Ortega’s research in the drafting process [5.6]. The compliance reports are recognised as key tools by public procurement professionals; as one stated: “I haven’t looked at any other statements. I have looked at Olga Martin-Ortega’s report […]” (Head of Procurement, University 28). Some respondents described Dr. Martin-Ortega’s work as akin to doing the benchmarking for the sector.” ( Rogerson et al., ‘Organisational responses to mandatory modern slavery disclosure legislation: a failure of experimentalist governance?’, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 2020:1518).

  • Trained over 100 UK Higher Education public buyers (6 HEPA high level training sessions, London, Leeds and Edinburgh, 2017-2018) [5.6]

Local government:

  • Drove local authorities to publish annual MS Statements on a voluntary basis, through her local authorities compliance reports ( Martin-Ortega, Gorna & Islam, 2018; Martin-Ortega & Gorna, 2020). Reporting by local authorities went from 33 in the financial year 2017/2018 to 140 in the financial year 2019/2020. Local Government Association (LGA) explicitly credits Martin-Ortega for this increase and directly refers local authorities to her work when writing their statement [5.7]. The 2018 report “ gave the local government sector the impetus to make real progress and change, it benchmarked were the sectors was in terms of council activity and participation as well as acting as the catalyst for improvement which Olga has provided the leadership, guidance and support for others, including the LGA to follow and collaborate with[5.7]

  • Defined local government practice for MS reporting. Her Aide Memoire on Modern Slavery: Transparency in supply chains statements (2018- downloaded over 750 times, 2020- downloaded over 300 times) is one of LGA’s most popular practical guidance [5.7].

  • Trained 250 local authorities (LGA, 2020), which reported acquiring knowledge which will change their professional practices [5.7, including quotes from participants];

UK sector as a whole:

  • Produced two guides for the Chartered Institute of Procurement and Supply (CIPS) (which has 45,000 members in public and private procurement) on protecting human rights in supply chains (2017) and MSA reporting (2019).

  • Produced a free e-learning package undertaken by 500 UK public buyers via LUPC by December 2020 [5.6].

  • Developed the supplier risk assessment and engagement tool Equiano , piloted with 75 public buyers including universities and local authorities (2018) [5.6; 5.7]. It served as basis for the government Modern Slavery Assessment Tool (MSAT) [5.2; 5.6; 5.7], used currently by nearly 50 public sector bodies supporting their engagement with over 1600 suppliers [5.7]. Equiano was shortlisted for a Green Gowns Award for Sustainability Excellence on Research with Impact (2019);

  • Drafted Contract Performance Conditions for public procurement contracts for combating modern slavery in supply chains, currently being used by UK public buyers, including LUPC in its Cleaning and Security Services Framework Agreements, the City of London Corporation, and adapted by others, e.g. DEFRA [5.6];

  • Organised Responsible Procurement Exchange Fora and Symposia bringing together over 100 public buyers over the years in these events (2014, 2015, 2017 and 2019- with the participation of the Czech and Slovak Ministries of Labour and their procurement professionals) to interact with peers, academics, civil society organisations and policy makers, widely influencing practice and leading to more responsible social procurement behaviours. Participants report these events impacted the way they address their human rights obligations [5.6; 5.7; 5.8].

International bodies and practice:

  • Produced Guidance on Preventing Trafficking in Human Beings for OSCE procurement and programmatic staff (submitted in December 2019, originally to be published June 2020 but delayed due to COVID pandemic), serving as the base for the review of all OSCE internal procurement processes impacting practice in its 14 field missions [5.8].

  • Developed two learning packages -in person and online- for OSCE staff [5.8] and trained over 40 professionals from 15 countries, including Serbia, Bosnia, Ukraine and Uzbekistan (April 2020; December 2020)

  • Drafted the Electronics Watch’s (EW) Contract Conditions v. 1 (2015) and co-wrote v.2 with the law firm Clyde and Co. (2018), adapted and translated for the UK, Spain, Belgium, Germany and Australia’s legal system. EW’s 329 affiliates worldwide have committed to include then in all their procurement contracts for electronics products [5.10], e.g. LUPC National Apple Equipment and Services and National Desktop and Notebook framework agreements (2016 and 2017, allowing LUPC’s 70 members to establish direct engagement with their suppliers to improve the working conditions in specific factories) [5.6]

  • Co-funded and currently coordinates the International Learning Lab on Public Procurement and Human Rights, a community of practice with over 500 public buyers, academics and practitioners across the world.

Pathway 3: Impact on specific working conditions and labour rights of workers in the electronics industry: overall improvement of working conditions and remediation of abusive recruitment violations which put workers at risk of modern slavery:

Relying in the Contract Conditions drafted by and based on Martin-Ortega’s research, the international civil society organisation Electronics Watch and local worker rights representatives to access factories have (2015-2020):

  • Engaged directly with 8 electronics brands have engaged to improve working conditions in the factories in which components are produced and/or products assembled its affiliates

  • Verified improvements to 10 factories **[** EW Annual Report, 2019 ; 5.10]

  • Forced the implementation of measures to improve the health and safety conditions in a factory in Indonesia where workers were suffering respiratory illnesses through exposure to the toxic cleaning solvent toluene (2019), including replacing it with less toxic alternative, ethyl acetate; repairing ventilation system; providing workers with more effective protective equipment;

  • Obtained remediation for 10,570 workers in debt bondage in factories in Thailand (2019) including devolution of own passports and work permits; full reimbursement of recruitment fees (the largest single company settlement of migrant worker recruitment fees ever) and the cessation of migrant workers hiring until an ethical recruitment policy had been approved to prevent future violations; and

  • Obtained remediation and improvements to conditions of 30 migrant workers in forced labour at a semi-conductor supplier in Malaysia (2018-2019), including reimbursements for illegal wage deductions and back-wages.

Based on her work on transparency in the electronics industry, negotiated an engagement agreement with the Responsible Business Alliance (representing the largest electronics brands) to provide access to factories, sharing of brand auditing reports and participation in design and implementation of corrective actions plans. Martin-Ortega chaired their first engagement meeting (Dec 2019) and participated in negotiations all through 2020 [5.10].

5. Sources to corroborate the impact

1] UK Cabinet Office, Procurement Policy Note 05/19: Tackling Modern Slavery in Government Supply Chains and Guidance, “Tackling Modern Slavery in Government Supply Chains. A Guide for Commercial and Procurement Professionals” 19 Sep. 2019 (p. 29 for acknowledgement to her work as a basis).

[2] Testimonial: Amir Fareed, Director of the Home Office Unit of Modern Slavery Prevention.

[3] UK Joint Parliamentary Committee on Human Rights, Inquiry on Business and Human Rights, Human Rights and Business 2017: Promoting responsibility and ensuring accountability (reference to recommendations by the International Learning Lab (co-written by Martin-Ortega).

[4] Testimonial: Baroness Young of Hornsey, cross bench peer at the House of Lords.

[5] Testimonial: Raphaël Glucksmann, Member, European Parliament; Rapporteur, Committee Foreign Affairs.

[6] Testimonial: Andy Davies, Procurement Manager, Natural History Museum; member of the Board of Trustees of EW; former Director, LUPC

[7] Testimonial: Guy Head, Local Government Improvement and Development, LGA.

[8] (a) Testimonial: Valiant Richey, Special Representative and Co-ordinator for Combating Trafficking in Human Beings, Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE); (b) Testimonial, Niamh Mercer, Head of Procurement Unit, Secretariat, OSCE

[9] Testimonial, Pauline Göthberg, National Coordinator and Head of Unit, National Secretariat for Sustainable Public Procurement, Swedish County Councils and Regions, former Project Lead, OECD Public Procurement and Responsible Business Conduct Programme.

[10] Testimonial, Björn Claeson, Director of Electronics Watch.

Showing impact case studies 1 to 2 of 2

Filter by higher education institution

UK regions
Select one or more of the following higher education institutions and then click Apply selected filters when you have finished.
No higher education institutions found.
Institutions

Filter by unit of assessment

Main panels
Select one or more of the following units of assessment and then click Apply selected filters when you have finished.
No unit of assessments found.
Units of assessment

Filter by continued case study

Select one or more of the following states and then click Apply selected filters when you have finished.

Filter by summary impact type

Select one or more of the following summary impact types and then click Apply selected filters when you have finished.

Filter by impact UK location

UK Countries
Select one or more of the following UK locations and then click Apply selected filters when you have finished.
No UK locations found.
Impact UK locations

Filter by impact global location

Continents
Select one or more of the following global locations and then click Apply selected filters when you have finished.
No global locations found.
Impact global locations

Filter by underpinning research subject

Subject areas
Select one or more of the following underpinning research subjects and then click Apply selected filters when you have finished.
No subjects found.
Underpinning research subjects