The ethics of using procurement to pressure suppliers into adopting environmental or social policies depends on intent, transparency, and feasibility. On one hand, companies have a responsibility to ensure their supply chains align with sustainable and ethical practices. Many corporations set Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) goals and expect suppliers to meet similar standards. This can lead to positive industry-wide changes, such as reducing carbon footprints, improving labor conditions, and promoting fair wages.

However, challenges arise when procurement is used as a coercive tool rather than a collaborative incentive. If suppliers are forced to adopt costly changes without sufficient support, they may struggle financially or cut corners elsewhere. A more ethical approach is to offer incentives, phased implementation plans, and collaboration opportunities rather than ultimatums.

For example, some companies provide training and financial assistance to help suppliers transition to sustainable practices. Should large corporations take on more responsibility in supporting supplier sustainability, or is it ultimately up to the suppliers to meet expectations independently?

Using procurement as leverage to encourage suppliers to adopt environmental and social policies can be ethical and effective when handled responsibly. The key is balance, ensuring transparency, fairness, and providing adequate support so suppliers can realistically achieve these expectations.

For example, companies like Apple and Nike actively engage with their suppliers to enforce stringent environmental and labor standards. Apple regularly audits its supply chain and has implemented training programs to help suppliers reduce energy use and adopt renewable energy sources (Apple Supplier Responsibility Progress Report, 2023​). Nike has collaborated with suppliers to improve working conditions and reduce environmental impact through clear guidelines, training sessions, and incentives (Nike Impact Report, 2022).
However, it becomes problematic if suppliers are pressured without support, leading to unsustainable financial burdens or unethical practices to cut costs. Ethical procurement involves clear communication, collaboration, realistic timelines, and sometimes financial or technical assistance from the purchasing companies.
Ultimately, large corporations play a crucial role by not only setting standards but actively supporting suppliers in meeting these expectations. This collaborative approach fosters sustainable and ethical improvements throughout the supply chain, benefiting both parties and contributing positively to society and the environment.

Apple Supplier Responsibility Progress Report 2023: Apple Inc. (2023). Supplier Responsibility Progress Report. Retrieved from https://s203.q4cdn.com/367071867/files/doc_downloads/PreviousProgressReports/Apple_SR_2023_Progress_Report.pdf ​

Nike Impact Report 2022: Nike, Inc. (2022). FY22 NIKE, Inc. Impact Report. Retrieved from https://media.about.nike.com/files/995eda87-a1be-4d7f-8788-49b9dc00c486/FY22-NIKE%2C-Inc.-Impact-Report.pdf ​

In my opinion, using procurement to influence supplier behavior can be ethical, but only under certain circumstances. It must be approached with intentionality and equity. When large corporations use their purchasing power to push for reform, the impact can be massive, but the ethics lie in how the influence is applied, not just the end result. Procurement becomes a force for good when companies collaborate with their suppliers and treat them as partners, not subordinates. They should offer support and co-invest in green technologies and allow for phased compliance with smaller suppliers. Using a shared-value model aligns supply chain ethics with long-term resilience and recognizes the economic realities of supplier operations. It can become unethical when companies impose demands with no considerations for the capacity of the supplier and use compliance as a metric, with threats to cut contracts without any warning. Companies can also shift the responsibility for sustainability onto the supplier completely, without playing their part in making a change. It should be a shared duty. Large companies often have the resources and influence to set the tone for industry-wide reform and more of an obligation to lead responsibly.