Continuity Promises Preserve Orders but Leave Qualification and Site Risks Open
A supplier’s promise to honour an existing order answers an immediate purchasing concern: will the goods still arrive? It leaves a different set of questions about what happens if the business behind that order changes. Buyers may need to establish whether the manufacturing site, qualification records, specifications or escalation contacts will change with it. A continuity statement can preserve confidence in the commercial relationship while leaving the operational work of assessing those changes unfinished.
Responses to The Supply Chainer from Silgan and EcoVadis address different aspects of that problem. Silgan supplied assurances about existing commitments following questions on its proposed combination of packaging businesses with Trivium Packaging. EcoVadis discussed the difficulty of obtaining evidence from suppliers beyond the direct contractual relationship. There is no suggestion in these responses of a connection between Silgan’s transaction and the human-rights risks described by EcoVadis; the shared procurement issue is understanding what an assurance establishes and what still requires evidence.
What the Continuity Statement Covers
The Supply Chainer asked Silgan what food and beverage customers should do to protect packaging supply while the transaction awaits completion. A second question asked which qualification checks would be required before an existing container or closure could be sourced from an additional plant. The company’s spokesperson emphasised fulfilment of existing commitments. The response did not identify customer actions, plant-transfer procedures or qualification requirements.
“Silgan is fulfilling existing commitments and agreements, with a continued focus on quality, delivery, and customer service,” the spokesperson said. On the question of qualification at an additional plant, the spokesperson added: “Customers can continue to expect the best-in-class service and customer focus they have always experienced from Silgan. Silgan will continue to be focused on meeting the unique needs of its customers and fulfilling existing commitments and agreements with a focus on quality, delivery, and customer service.”
Those statements establish the company’s position on customer service and contractual continuity. They do not indicate that production will move, nor do they explain what would happen if a customer sought supply from another facility. For procurement teams, that distinction prevents an unanswered question from becoming an assumed approval. An alternative source becomes usable only when the buyer has established the requirements applicable to its product and intended use.
The Evidence Gap Grows Beyond Direct Suppliers
Antoine Heuty, Senior Vice President of Human Rights at EcoVadis, identifies a more fundamental limitation when exposure sits several tiers upstream. At that distance, a buyer may lack both direct information and the commercial relationship needed to obtain it. A contractual requirement imposed on the immediate supplier does not itself demonstrate conditions at every upstream site. Heuty argues that companies need evidence suited to the location and nature of the risk:
“Focusing on geographic risks penalizes compliant operators while failing to pinpoint specific sites of abuse or guide day-to-day actions. Regulations reflect this gap. The US Tariff Act and UFLPA, Section 301, and the EU's Forced Labour Regulation all lean on regional and product-level presumptions because more granular data isn't available.
“When deciding how much to trust risk signals, teams should match methodology of assessment to the tier and risk by using site assessments for direct contracts, zone-level canvassing for upstream sourcing, and continuous grievance channels across high-risk areas. They can also leverage established frameworks: landscape approaches used for deforestation (soy, palm, cocoa) and OECD mineral guidelines offer proven models for human rights due diligence.”
Heuty’s broader argument is that a country-level warning should guide investigation rather than substitute for it. His suggested approach combines information about sourcing regions with more specific evidence from sites, workers and communities. That is distinct from checking product qualification, but both activities require buyers to define the question before accepting the documentation offered in response. A supplier declaration, an audit and a worker grievance channel each reveal different things.
Make the Unanswered Question Visible
Earlier Supply Chainer coverage of supplier screening highlighted the importance of looking beyond policy statements. Scott Lehmann, Vice President of Product Management at Sphera, Operational Risk Management & Supply Chain, said disruption exposes risks that were never mapped. In separate coverage of supply-chain reshuffling, Paolo Palumbo, Vice President of WithSecure Intelligence at WithSecure, warned: “Insufficient risk assessment, inadequate supplier vetting, and overlooked compliance issues are only part of the picture.” His comments concerned cyber risk during rapid operational changes, rather than packaging or labour conditions.
For buyers, the practical discipline is to record what remains unresolved alongside what has been confirmed. A commitment to maintain deliveries can be accepted as the supplier’s stated position without being treated as evidence that another plant is qualified. An upstream risk indicator can justify further investigation without being treated as proof against an individual supplier. Keeping those distinctions visible gives procurement a clearer basis for deciding which questions require an answer before the next sourcing decision.
