"We’ve chosen scale, and the conceptual apparatus to manage it, at the expense of finer-grained knowledge that could make a more just and equitable arrangement possible."<p>There is some truth to that, but there are also cases where companies monitor the root hairs of the supply chain for quality but forbid the quality inspectors from reporting any human rights issues they see (and/or they arrange the inspections to limit the chance that they will see any such issues). IIRC (I don't have a good link at the moment but will update if I find one), this is particularly likely to happen with industry run certifications like Rainforest Alliance or Forest Stewardship Council where the certifications claim to do detailed tracking for environmental or social reasons but because they are run by companies that profit off of exploitation they rather provide a framework for punishing suppliers with quality issues.<p>It is a very much intentional situation and not just on the part of companies but also the governments of powerful countries that ensure that exploitative arrangements are available. It is not, as the author claims, something that was made possible by the internet but is a defining aspect of the last at least five hundred years of world history, the major driving force behind colonialism. For anyone who cares about human rights or history it is a vital topic to pay attention to.<p>In terms of how to attempt to avoid at least the worst of the exploitation when buying things, look for fair trade certifications or other certifications that have a fair trade aspects that are supported by labor and human rights organizations and not just industry group. Avoid buying from the largest food and clothing companies as they are some of the worst offenders. Support politicians and labor and human rights organizations that work to hold companies accountable for their supply chain conditions.
Whoa. This is such a profound piece. We praise information hiding and process isolation because it is the key to a large-scale system that is successful, and indeed it <i>is</i> the key to a large-scale system that is successful! Of course the information get hidden away, and we have to face its consequence.
> <i>It’s entirely possible to have an astoundingly effective supply chain while also knowing very little about it. Not only is it possible: it may be the enabling condition of capitalism at a global scale.</i><p>In Hayek's view, this is a <i>defining</i> characteristic of capitalism.<p>There is a "structure of production", far too vast for any planner (or supply chain management expert) to comprehend. But it works anyway through a process of distributed information discovery coordinated in the minimum by prices.<p>Put another way: without prices, it stops working at all, SAP or not.<p>Where supply chain management mostly comes from is that to the extent that companies can <i>add</i> to price-based coordination, they can improve profitability for the participating members of the supply chain. The classic problem is "the bullwhip effect". We recognise a similar phenomenon in buffer bloat. Where you have local inventories and local optimisation, you can get a great deal of unpleasant oscillation.