RésuméEn 2018, l'effondrement du Rana Plaza braquait le projecteur sur les conditions de travail parfois déplorables dans la confection. Si la grande distribution est depuis pointée du doigt, la responsabilité des cabinets d'audit social est rarement mentionnée. Les auteures examinent les moyens disponibles à ce stade pour repérer et sanctionner les audits négligents ou complaisants, qui taisent les atteintes aux droits des travailleurs. Elles constatent que les contrôles et les rappels à l'ordre restent limités dans les faits. Elles s'interrogent alors sur l'apport des initiatives de responsabilité sociale pour un contrôle véritable de la qualité des audits et une responsabilisation de leurs auteurs.
ResumenEl colapso del Rana Plaza en 2013 concienció acerca de las condiciones de trabajo abusivas en la industria del vestido. Se ha prestado mucha atención a la responsabilidad de las empresas minoristas, pero no tanta a la de las empresas de auditoría social. Las autoras investigan los sistemas existentes para detectar y corregir las auditorías deficientes e ineficaces y concluyen que, en la práctica, la supervisión y las sanciones en este ámbito son limitadas. Se explora pues cómo las iniciativas de cumplimiento social pueden mejorar la verificación de la calidad de las auditorías y la rendición de cuentas.
AbstractThe 2013 Rana Plaza collapse led to increased awareness of abusive working conditions in the garment industry. Much attention has since been paid to the role and responsibility of retailing companies. The responsibility of social auditing companies, however, has often been overlooked. The authors investigate the systems in place to detect and address substandard auditing that fails to detect violations of workers' rights. They find that, in practice, oversight of social auditors and sanctions for substandard audits are both limited. In this light, this article explores how social compliance initiatives can play a role in improving verification of audit quality and ensuring accountability.
AbstractFamilies experiencing separation and divorce often find it difficult to provide emotional stability for children as the parents struggle with financial, parenting, and relationship decisions. The effect on children can be especially precarious. Adverse childhood experiences, or ACEs, are risk factors that potentially affect children for the rest of their lives. Parental separation and divorce are identified as adverse childhood experiences and the experiences of stress and loss, reduced parental effectiveness, and exposure to parental conflict, among other stressors, may explain some of the negative outcomes often observed in children following divorce. It is essential that public institutions, including courts, are informed about the risks and protective factors associated with ACEs and resolve to mitigate the effects for children and families whom they serve. Domestic Relations Courts are uniquely equipped to address the effects that parental separation and divorce have on children, given the courts' authority to govern the legal divorce and custody process. The Domestic Relations Court in Delaware, Ohio, is committed to assisting families navigate separation and divorce in a way that is in the best interests of all, especially the children. The Court has created four specific programs to help litigants navigate their emotions, create new narratives, and explore solutions to conflict outside of trial. These innovative programs go beyond traditional court practices to treat the spouses and parents as unique individuals, giving them ample opportunities to address traumatic events and be validated for their lived experience. The suite of services includes Settlement Weeks, Neutral Evaluation, Co‐parent Coaching, and Brief Family Assessments. In the subsequent sections, we will delve into each program, exploring their promise for improving outcomes for the public, the litigants, and the court as a whole.
