Hidden vs. Aware - Implications of liquid responsibility
Ever thought about responsibility distribution, esp. in supply chains? In this perspective piece I share how we can use it as framework to gain entry points for healing malfunctioning systems.
In 3 days, Rana Plaza will have its sad 13th anniversary. For the Daily Star, Adiba Afros and Sifat E Nur Khanam summarize very well what has happened since, or rather what has not happened. Again and again, they point to the system not being changed, the system that is malfunctioning. Rana Plaza was a very obvious symptom of a malfunctioning system, while there have been and are so many more silent ones until today. What we - companies, managers, suppliers, end-consumers, basically any human, as we are all actors in this malfunctioning system - usually do is apply plasters to a crazy bleeding, deep, huge wound. Why? Because actually changing something that corrects the system would threaten the status quo. A status quo that is comfortable for some and life-threatening for others. While comfort might be nice for the moment, it ignores the potential that is lost at the same time.
Malfunctioning systems hurt everyone
Example: A company monitoring supply chain risks obediently because of the coming and existing sustainability regulations, while they could actually position themselves as innovative by collaborating with their supply chain partners on eye-level to actually reduce those risks. Collecting more and more data through the next social audit for risk monitoring, not 100% knowing if that data is true, because they do not trust their supply chain partners, instead of asking relevant questions that open room for actual improvement. This comfort is a learned comfort because actually, those companies, their employees supporting the malfunctioning system are also suffering. Suffering from the reporting load, suffering from the fear of what happens if the data is wrong, what happens if the government body controls their data, realizing the fines and lost credibility or from the fear of another Rana Plaza.
So, if we are honest, the malfunctioning system does not serve anyone. It seems the people serve the system, not the system the people. The beautiful thing about this is: Systems are human-made, and we can always change them. Yes, that requires balls, courage, power, resources, and endurance. But ask yourself: Do I wanna keep on suffering, even if it seems comfortable, or do I want to work and live in a system that serves me, us, my work, my company, our growth?
The hidden champion: Responsibility and its distribution
Since the answer is obvious, here is the first step for this change: Start questioning what and why you do things, where you take over responsibility and where you do not, and if that were different, how would it change the system? Creating a landscape of responsibility distribution is a helpful framework to learn the starting points of change. It lays open power hierarchies, processes, and boundaries of responsibility, giving room to analyse and realize imbalances. The system usually hides responsibility in the complexity of its networks, which today's so-called supply chains have become. Plus, we do not talk about responsibility; we usually just assume it. Therefore, responsibility itself is like a liquid, moved by the least resistance, which means it usually ends up with the most vulnerable.
A liquid state also means lacking control. So, looking at responsibility in a precautionary way allows each of us to take back control of our own integrity, over the things that lie in our reach, so they do not backfire. Isn’t it a nice thought: Everyone taking over the responsibility for the things they can control, which means none of us has to worry that something goes wrong? This is why supply chain integrity, as I define it, matters.1 It takes the heavy burden from one shoulder and shares it among all actors equitably. And yes, I am aware that this is very tightly connected to trust. You might ask yourself: How can I trust that my supply chain partner pays their workers a wage they can actually live with without me enforcing it? Very valid question that I answer in another article, connected to my master's thesis, as I covered this in different chapters. Reason: Before we can even start talking about trust, we need to understand where the responsibilities are and where they should be.
The reason for the architecture of silence around responsibility
One factor that influences the flowing state of responsibility is our perception of it. When we hear the term, it has a neutral to negative connotation, connected to blame, guilt, and mistakes. To move away from this backwards-oriented definition of culpability, we need to sit down and think about the distribution of responsibility proactively, consciously, not just letting it flow. This then allows for a precautionary approach, distributing responsibilities to those actors who can influence the system in a way that harm doesn’t even appear. Then it becomes less about collecting sustainability certificates and audits to prove nothing is wrong through a third party and more about figuring out what the actual levers of change are to get to a healthy system.
This is why looking at responsibility and its distribution is such a good entry point for evaluating a system and coming up with solutions, because as soon as you actually think and talk about it, you catch that liquid and can assign it consciously to those actors who have the capacities to take over responsibility in a meaningful way. Let’s change this system with its architecture of silence to a system of awareness, consciousness, so that all of us get rid of the worries and gain good sleep (I wish I could add an ‘again’ here, but let’s be honest: When it comes to these matters, when have we ever had a truly good night’s sleep?).
Responsibility Distribution in my Thesis
To give more background to the topic of responsibility distribution, here is the introductory part of the literature review in my master’s thesis. Reading this part again at first left me kind of frustrated because it is still the same four years later: Who actually looks at responsibility distribution proactively to change malfunctioning systems? And yes, we have tools like RASCI2 - but are they used on a societal level? By sitting with this discomfort, though, it reminded me why I am building my Perspective Lab, why I want to strategically advise companies for supply chain integrity, because it is easy to mope around and complain, but why should anyone else do the work for me? This is my way of changing the world for the better. Enjoy!
Preparing the work: How does the literary landscape of responsibility distribution in Global Production Networks look like?
Responsibility distribution in Global Production Networks is a cross-cutting issue for many research areas, primarily economics, law, business ethics, and sustainability (Radcliffe & Humphries,2004, p. 1; Spence & Bourlakis, 2009, p. 292). However, defining a framework for it is challenging not only because of its thematic interdisciplinarity but also because of its tacitness: It is difficult to put the finger on it. Responsibility distribution influences every level of our global economy, is omnipresent, yet not visible because hardly anyone talks about it and research does not prioritize it (Phillips & Caldwell, 2005, p. 349). That is why, in addition to academic literature, this research is also informed by other content formats, such as blog posts, podcasts, or social media postings, to depict as holistic and current a status quo as possible. To cast the responsibility distribution in Global Production Networks into tangible forms and cope with its complexity, I developed four overarching questions that are relevant to the question of an equitable responsibility distribution in Global Production Networks and will structure the coming sections:
Why are Global Production Networks an ideal case study for responsibility research?
What does it mean to assume responsibility in Global Production Networks?
What are the relational factors influencing Global Production Networks?
What does technology contribute to equitable responsibility distribution in Global Production Networks?
Traditional definitions of supply chain integrity focus on product counterfeits and physical security. In 2026, real integrity is about the reliability of the human and technical systems that hold your business together under CSDDD, LkSG, and the Digital Product Passport. A fake product is a symptom. A broken network is the disease.
Therefore, I redefined it: Supply Chain Integrity is the structural soundness of a global production network where reliable data flows with the same ease as goods. It is the end of 'Compliance Theatre' and the beginning of strategic mastery: treating regulations not as a burden, but as the essential rules of a global game that reveal a company's true status quo. By architecting a system that respects the situated perspectives of every actor — from the boardroom to the Tier 4 farmer — Supply Chain Integrity replaces extractive pressure with equitable partnership. This is the only incorruptible foundation for the systemic transformation and resilient growth necessary to thrive in a shifting world order — ensuring your company stays relevant today, and for the next 100 years.
RASCI is a project management tool to assign clear responsibilities and prevent misunderstandings. The acronym stands for:
Responsible
Accountable
Supporting
Consulted
Informed