Transforming Supply Chains from Circularity to Regenerative Support Networks: Reseeded Economies to Operate Within
This article highlights & examines the transformative approaches championed by companies like Fairphone and Tony’s Chocolonely, as well as regenerative models outside of the business world
In a world defined by the polycrisis of climate and ecological breakdown, escalating conflicts, and rampant inequality, sustainability can no longer be about incremental improvements within a failing system. It demands a fundamental transformation of our economic system so that it respects critical Earth System boundaries, and brings our collective activities back within and safe and just operating space for humanity (Gupta et al., 2023, 2024)1.
The circular economy has laid a crucial foundation by emphasizing the reuse of materials and minimizing waste. Yet, closing material loops alone is insufficient. We have to navigate and innovate beyond circularity toward regenerative economies and their support networks; systems rooted in land stewardship, Indigenous knowledge, and community empowerment that restore ecosystems and redistribute agency across supply chains.
We are interested in what drives this transformation away from optimising operations and tweaking parameters within a collapsing system, going beyond socio-technical transitions which may overlook the micro-level of transformation and the psychology and sociology of systemic change needed.
At Ozymandias Intelligence, we believe that where change often goes wrong is in its assumptions that everyone understands key concepts in the same way. The devil is in the details of our own mental models. That’s why we like to start with definitions.
A Supply Chain is a network of businesses, organisations, and activities involved in the creation and delivery of a product or service. Key components include suppliers, manufacturers, distributors, retailers, and consumers. In recent decades, given increased globalization, products and services often involve multiple countries, with different suppliers and manufacturers spread across the world. In addition to more commonplace focuses including technology and automation (enterprise resource planning, blockchain, the internet of things), and risk management (natural disasters, supply chain disruptions, cybersecurity), sustainability has become an increasingly important component of supply chains. Consequently, and in conjunction with numerous human rights infringements, environmental disasters and economic injustices, the twin operational and moral imperative to ‘green’ their supply chains is hard to ignore for businesses across sectors to implement the circularity and ethical sourcing.
By greening supply chains a company is understood to minimize environmental impact through sustainable sourcing, reducing waste, and optimizing transportation. The circular economy ensures that products are reused, refurbished, or recycled at the end of use. And ethical sourcing ensures suppliers maintain fair labour practices and sustainable production methods. Many companies are actively working to make their supply chains more sustainable, reduce waste, and promote reuse and recycling through these practices, but this alone is not enough for the transformation of our economic system away from infringing Earth System boundaries.
1. The Limits of Circularity
Sustainability, and the greening of supply chains - sustainable logistics, circular materials flows, ethical sourcing - is often progressively framed. These approaches have gained traction as companies seek to reduce waste, improve transparency, and present themselves as responsible actors in a rapidly changing landscape. However, while these efforts may appear progressive, they often remain locked within an extractive logic; one that optimises closing the loops within existing supply chains, rather than fundamentally transforming them to regenerate, restore and re-root themselves into the land. To tackle the rarely addressed deeper social and ecological relationships that underpin resource extraction, Indigenous communities, whose inter-generational science and wisdom harmoniously steward living systems, must be included front-and-centre. Their ancestral knowledge embodies regenerative land use, yet they are all too often marginalized or harmed by so-called “sustainable” supply chains, which can perpetuate colonial patterns of dispossession and environmental degradation (Palsa & Pulk, 2024a).
Accordingly, in this article, we focus on the need to ground or ‘reseed’ our business practice of supply chain management into the earth and people they fundamentally depend on.
Corporate Sustainability Leadership with Limits
Whilst many corporations can and do lead on sustainability in supply chains, with initiatives like Patagonia’s Worn Wear (promoting repair and reuse) and the use of organic and recycled materials to reduce environmental harm, they operate within the constraints of the consumer economy, encouraging continued consumption rather than redefining the economic system itself. Moreover, these more visible approaches to sustainably optimising supply chains, like all globalized production systems, still rely on complex abstractions of logistics, raw material extraction, and industrial processes that cannot fully escape their environmental impact (Palsa & Pulk, 2024b)2.
Renewable Materials, But a Linear Model
Many corporations have made significant changes to their supply chains in an effort to promote sustainability; and we do not doubt (some of) their good intentions. However, a closer inspection into some multinationals’ supply chains raises concerns about deforestation, labor conditions, and waste management (Palsa & Pulk, 2024b).
Despite strong circular economy narratives, many business models still depend on mass production and rapid consumption cycles, which contradict the principles of regeneration as well as undermining the sovereignty and rights of indigenous peoples who might stand in the way of such ‘sustainable’ or ‘circular’ resource acquisition.
Sustainable Sourcing with Centralised Power
It is a positive development that some companies have been committing to 100% sustainable packaging and ethical sourcing of ingredients, like palm oil and mica in the cosmetics industry, for example. Nonetheless, such ethical sourcing can fall short of actually working to ensure social and climate justice; while it reduces harm, it rarely redistributes power to those most impacted by extractive supply chains, such as indigenous communities and smallholder farmers (Palsa & Pulk, 2024a). Their expertise, experience, and knowledge systems are implicitly called in to question; it is assumed we - the outside benevolent force - knows best. The question then becomes: can a company truly be regenerative if it still holds centralized control over value creation and resource distribution?
The above highlights the drawbacks of optically and optimally successful sustainability and circular economy practices. We’ve curated practices from a selection of industries, inclusive of retail and beauty, that are recognizing the importance of sustainability in supply chains but might struggle to see the wood for the trees (pun-intended) in terms of the market transformation that needs to happen. Our attention, here, is less on the specific corporations in question (that’s more for the BDS movement), and more the pattern and causal-symptomatic behaviours they exhibit as embedded systems in the wider fabric of our planet’s biophysical boundaries, carrying capacities and complexity.
Their efforts to reduce waste, recycle materials, and promote circular economies are setting examples, yet, by taking a deeper, systemic view, these practices also illustrate how corporate sustainability narratives optimize and position rather than regenerate and transform. They fail to challenge the fundamental structures of supply chain capitalism they are embedded within. Where, indeed, does the supply chain extract its raw materials from in the end? Who does the heavy-lifting and how are they fairly compensated and protected?
To be able to honestly answer these questions, leaders need to take a step back and examine the broader picture, as well as the deeper behaviours at play which drive these business structures and processes.
2. The Psychology of Transformative Change: Toward a Regenerative Economy
For transformative change to take place, we need to first understand how systems behave, the psychology of actors leading them, and how deeply ingrained patterns of consumption, production, and business models have shaped our own worldview and mindset. For generations, our economies have prioritized extraction and short-term gains. This mindset is rooted in industrial-era thinking that treats the environment and labor as resources to be used and discarded.
Transitioning from this destructive mindset to one of regeneration is no easy task. It requires a fundamental shift in how we perceive value. In a regenerative supply chain, value isn’t just economic; it's social, cultural, collective, and rooted in the land. It's about materializing social goods in the supply chain, where workers' rights, community empowerment, and ecosystem restoration are as valuable as the raw materials that fuel the production process.
This shift demands an evolution in corporate culture that moves from a focus on profit maximization to a systemic fitness that centres the well-being of people and planet. It requires leaders to internalize these values at every level of their business, including in their own inner development, and to see their role as stewards of collective prosperity. Furthermore, consumer psychology must evolve too; for the plurality and awareness of deeper leverage points to intervene in systems, as Donella Meadow’s famously opined3, we have to go beyond the ‘user’, ‘consumer’, ‘customer’ mindset that reduces human beings to productive, functional operators in the grand institutional Cartesian machine that we have built over generations. These are whole people, with multifaceted, complex, diverse identities and roles who should be encouraged to value the story behind the products they purchase: how they’re made, who made them, and what happens when they reach the end of their life cycle. This is not just a business change, but a societal and cultural transformation.
Regenerative Economy
The regenerative economy is an evolution that recognizes the need for wholesale system change. It involves shifting from a mindset of profit maximization at the expense of people and the planet, to one where supply chains actively regenerate ecosystems and empower communities. Going beyond a redesign of products, and the introduction of greener technologies, this concerns a transformation in how we think about value.
Despite trends in some new ventures to frame the stocks-and-flows reduction of the complex Web of Life we all depend on (Capra, 1996)4 into the 6 capitals as being about creating ‘radical value’, we warn companies not to overlook the intrinsic assets in social, cultural and ecological systems that need not always be extracted, commodified and materialised elsewhere. We don’t actually need, nor should we actually, value everything instrumentally - some things have intrinsic value that cannot be measured.
It’s about being aware of our place in the wider system we are a part of. It's about recognizing that the goods we supply and consume are not just material; they are social and cultural assets that have intrinsic worth, not solely acquiring value the minute they become part of a stocks and flow model that may reduce their worth, severing the links to the peoples to whom they belong (whether land, cultural practice or spiritual artefact).
As we mentioned earlier, for organizations to move toward a regenerative economy, they must also contribute positively to these inherent assets and values in our intertwined social and ecological systems.
Transforming the Business Mindset
The shift toward a regenerative supply chain, therefore, demands a fundamental change in mindset; from seeing business as an engine of profit extraction to viewing it as an engine of purpose-driven regenerative innovation. We are by far not the first to say that companies need to move beyond short-term profit maximization to focus on (re)creating long-term value for people and planet.
Business leaders must cultivate a mindset that sees purpose and stewardship as the core of strategy, embedding social justice and sustainability into the heart of their identity and practice. This transformation can be catalyzed by purpose-driven, inner development aligned (see the Inner Development Goals) leadership and by regenerating not just value, but grounded assets at the roots of supply chains, where every participant - be it a worker, supplier, or community - shares in their inherent worth and socio-ecological service.
I. The Intersection of Sustainability, Social Good, and Regeneration: Tools and Real-World Cases
With regenerative practices that embody both environmental and social regeneration, one of the most significant steps is to internalize the materialization of social goods. This means recognizing that the benefits of a supply chain are not only economic or environmental. Organizations must engage in fair trade practices, ethical labor sourcing, and community empowerment initiatives. For example, this could involve paying fair wages, supporting educational programmes, and ensuring that communities near factories or farms are not just surviving but thriving.
As part of this systemic change, businesses should adopt metrics, and other forms of assessment, that evaluate social and cultural outcomes beyond environmental impact; as well as ringfencing artefacts and ecosystems that should not be touched or valued. Social impact assessments and community well-being indicators should be integrated into decision-making processes. A key approach that aligns with this approach is encapsulated by Circularise’s R-strategies Hierarchy.
The R-Strategies Hierarchy: A Lens for Critical Circularity
The R-strategies framework offers a valuable tool to visualize how circular economy practices vary in their sustainability impact.
The hierarchy ranks strategies from shortest to longest waste loops:
Short loops (Refuse, Rethink, Reduce) prevent waste and minimize material use at the source.
Medium loops (Reuse, Repair, Remanufacture, Refurbish, Repurpose) extend product life and slow material flows.
Long loops (Recycle, Recover, Remine) close loops by reclaiming materials but still depend on energy-intensive processes and ongoing extraction.
In this model, shorter loops (e.g., Refuse, Rethink, Reduce) are more equitable than long loops like Recycling (R8) or Recovery (R9). The lower rungs (recycling/recovery) still rely on linear extraction (e.g., mining for recycled materials) and energy-intensive processes that disproportionately affect Indigenous lands5. So, while recycling and recovery are often celebrated, they represent the least sustainable strategies because they rely on continued extraction of raw materials and energy inputs, disproportionately impacting Indigenous lands and communities (Circularise, 2025) (TNO, 2024) (Kezzler, 2024).
To truly transform supply chains, businesses must prioritize the top rungs of the R-ladder - refusing unnecessary products, rethinking consumption patterns, and reducing material use - while embedding Indigenous stewardship models that emphasize reciprocal, place-based relationships rather than commodified resource flows.
This Indigenous stewardship approach contains key values and principles in an inherently relational approach. We see the R-ladder as needing to be paired with these Indigenous models (e.g., Hawaiʻi’s aloha ʻāina), ensuring that reciprocal human-environment relationships are prioritized over resource loops. This can be visualised as cyclical resource flows embedded in cultural stewardship (e.g., regenerative land use tied to community well-being rather than profit) (Beamer et al., 2023).
Real-World Cases: Fairphone & Tony’s Chocolonely
Fairphone and Tony’s Chocolonely stand out as compelling real-world examples of companies actively transforming supply chains through regenerative and ethical practices that challenge the extractive norms of conventional industries.
Fairphone, a pioneer in ethical electronics, has made significant strides in sourcing conflict-free and fair materials, going beyond compliance to engage deeply with miners, workers, and communities in the supply chain. By 2023, Fairphone surpassed its goal of integrating an average of 70% fair focus materials in its latest model, the Fairphone 5, and continues to push for living wages, worker empowerment, and nature regeneration across its supply chains
Their approach includes using recycled materials such as copper, plastics, and rare earth metals, and maintaining e-waste neutrality by collecting an equivalent amount of e-waste for every phone sold. Moreover, Fairphone’s commitment to product longevity - designing phones to last an average of 5.5 years compared to the industry’s 2.7 years - directly reduces waste and environmental impact, embodying the upper rungs of the R-strategies hierarchy by prioritizing refuse, rethink, and reduce strategies alongside reuse and repair. Despite challenges like higher price points and scaling complexities, Fairphone’s work exemplifies how circularity can be meaningfully integrated with social justice and environmental stewardship, though they acknowledge the journey toward truly fair and circular business models is ongoing6.
Similarly, Tony’s Chocolonely exemplifies a holistic, mission-driven approach to transforming the notoriously exploitative cocoa supply chain. Founded to eradicate child labor and modern slavery, Tony’s operates with a clear set of five sourcing principles that emphasize 100% traceable cocoa, paying higher prices, investing in farmer cooperatives, nurturing long-term relationships, and maintaining quality and productivity.
Their innovative BeanTracker technology ensures full transparency from bean to bar, enabling accountability and direct connections with farmers, which is critical for addressing systemic issues of exploitation and poverty in cocoa-growing communities. Tony’s impact is measurable: child labor rates within their supply chain cooperatives have dropped dramatically, and their investments extend beyond fair wages to include education, vocational training, infrastructure improvements, and diversified income opportunities for farmers and their families.
By fostering long-term partnerships and supporting community-led solutions, Tony’s moves beyond circularity’s material focus to embed regenerative social and economic practices that restore dignity and resilience to farming communities. Their model also challenges the wider industry through collaborative initiatives like Tony’s Open Chain, advocating for systemic change beyond their own operations.
Together, Fairphone and Tony’s Chocolonely illustrate how regenerative support networks can be built by centering transparency, fairness, and community empowerment - key elements often missing in mainstream circular economy models. They show that closing material loops must be accompanied by closing social and ecological justice loops, aligning with the highest rungs of the R-strategies framework and the imperative to move from extractive supply chains toward regenerative, rooted economies.
II. Decentralising Power in Regenerative Supply Networks
A second key means through which to reseed or ‘de-materialise’ our supply chains is by rejecting linear "green growth" models that practically do not cohere with how our ecological or social systems behave - centering frameworks and models that promote and practice wealth redistribution versus corporate ownership of materials (Isenhour et al., 2022) for instance, and reparations for historical ecological harm (Cabrales Salazar et al., 2021).
From Circular Economy to Regenerative Support Networks
A regenerative supply network goes beyond closing loops in a circular economy and minimizing damage by intentionally and actively restoring ecosystems, rebuilding soil health, fostering reciprocity and redistributing power throughout the entire chain.
They foster resilience by rooting economic activity in local, Indigenous-led knowledge systems and community well-being rather than centralized corporate control. This shift demands co-designing initiatives with Indigenous communities, respecting their sovereignty and integrating traditional knowledge into technologies and practices.
Support Network Examples
1: Save Soil - From Sustainability to Regeneration
The Save Soil movement, endorsed by figures like Jane Goodall and multiple UN agencies, emphasizes the critical role of soil health in reversing environmental degradation, improving food security, and combating climate change; it represents a paradigm shift in environmental action, from harm reduction to active regeneration. The movement’s approach is multi-pronged: it calls for ambitious policy reform by encouraging governments to set and meet soil regeneration targets; it supports farmers and land stewards with education, incentives, and practical resources to transition from extractive agricultural practices to regenerative ones; and it drives a global awareness campaign to reframe soil health as a critical, existential issue, not just an agricultural concern.
This model stands in stark contrast to many well-reputed corporate circular economy efforts, which often focus on optimizing resource efficiency and minimizing waste within existing production systems. Rather than simply advocating for sustainable land use, Save Soil foregrounds the urgent need to restore the foundational health of our planet’s ecosystems by regenerating soil organic content on a global scale. Indeed, by seeking to restore the very foundation upon which all supply chains depend - healthy, living soil - the model emphasizes that true regeneration starts at the root, literally and figuratively.
By centering the agency of farmers and local communities, and by demanding systemic policy change, Save Soil exemplifies a regenerative support network that re-roots economic activity in the cycles of nature, rather than in the abstractions of globalized capital
In summary7, Save Soil regenerates natural ecosystems by advocating for:
Policy reform: Encouraging governments to adopt soil regeneration targets.
Farmer incentives: Supporting land stewards with education and economic incentives to transition to regenerative practices.
Consumer awareness: Shifting public understanding of soil health from an agricultural issue to a global existential challenge.
2: Social Permaculture - Distributed Agency in Supply Chains
Social permaculture extends the principles of ecological design from the land to the very structure of human systems - supply chains, community economies, and governance models included. Unlike typically centralized and top-down corporate approaches, social permaculture advocates for decentralized, place-based, and participatory approaches to regeneration. In practice, this means supply networks that empower smallholders, workers, and local communities to co-create solutions tailored to their unique ecological and cultural contexts. By distributing agency and decision-making power, social permaculture ensures that those most intimately connected to the land - often Indigenous peoples, small farmers, and local producers - are not just implementers of sustainability, but designers and stewards of regenerative systems.
This approach challenges the prevailing logic of globalized supply chains, which tend to abstract and commodify both people and nature. Instead, social permaculture models foster resilience, adaptability, and social justice by rooting economic activity in place-based relationships and reciprocal care. In this way, social permaculture offers a blueprint for supply chains that are not only environmentally restorative but also fundamentally democratic and just, embodying the shift from extractive to regenerative economies.
Inspired by permaculture principles, social permaculture applies ecological design thinking to human systems, including supply chains, community economies, and governance models. Small-scale, decentralized models highlight a crucial distinction: corporate sustainability efforts are often centralized, while truly regenerative networks distribute power and decision-making to those directly engaged in production and land stewardship. Social permaculture and community-led supply networks empower people to make localized, context-sensitive decisions, ensuring that sustainability is not just an environmental goal but a socio-economic transformation8.
3: Decolonizing Supply Chains
The work of scholars and think-tanks such as Palsa & Pulk brings into sharp relief the limitations of many corporate-led sustainability and circular economy initiatives, particularly as they relate to Indigenous rights and land sovereignty. Their research reveals how even the most celebrated “sustainable” raw materials - timber, palm oil, lithium, and more - are frequently sourced from lands that have been historically appropriated from Indigenous communities, perpetuating cycles of dispossession and ecological harm.
Decolonizing supply chains, therefore, is not simply a matter of improving transparency or reducing harm; it requires a reparative redistribution of power and agency. This includes shifting governance from distant corporate boards to local producer cooperatives and Indigenous-led institutions, and prioritizing restorative investment that seeks to repair historical injustices in addition to mitigating future impacts.
Palsa & Pulk’s analysis underscores the need to move beyond ESG checklists and standardized metrics, advocating instead for supply chain models rooted in reciprocity, justice, and genuine ecosystem regeneration.
Only by centering Indigenous knowledge, honoring land rights, and embedding local governance can businesses hope to create supply chains that are truly regenerative - restoring both the land and the communities who have stewarded it for generations.
In summary, many corporate efforts often bypass indigenous and grassroots regenerative models in favor of standardized, scalable solutions. We reinforce the need for:
Decolonized supply chains: Recognizing that many “sustainable” raw materials (e.g., timber, palm oil, lithium) are still extracted from lands historically taken from indigenous communities.
Local governance: Shifting decision-making power from corporate boards to producer cooperatives and indigenous governance structures.
Restorative investment: Ensuring that sustainability initiatives repair past damage rather than merely reducing future harm9.
The Business Imperative for a Regenerative Economy - reseeding our businesses in fertile soil
“Economic activities are a major reason why humanity is crossing six of the nine planetary boundaries, including climate, biodiversity, water and land. This could make large parts of the world uninhabitable, and also make business impossible or much more costly” Prof Beatrice Krona, Stockholm Resilience Centre, Doing Business within Planetary Boundaries
Transforming supply chains into regenerative support networks requires rethinking power, ownership, and accountability. While there are many corporate sustainability approaches leading the discourse, they overlook the need to go beyond innovations and changes that optimise within an extractive economic model. True transformation lies in radical market change, in decentralized, community-driven, and ecosystem-centered approaches, such as with Fairphone and Tony’s Chocolonely in the business world, and Save Soil, social permaculture, and indigenous-led regenerative supply systems in civil society and not-for-profit.
1. The Business Case for Regeneration
Market Risk Reduction: As consumers become more discerning, greenwashing is an increasing liability. Companies that fail to transition beyond circularity to true regeneration may face reputational and regulatory risks.
Resilience Over Efficiency: Traditional supply chains prioritize efficiency and cost-cutting, but regenerative supply networks build resilience - critical in an era of climate instability and resource depletion.
2. Policy & Regulation: Beyond Corporate ESG Reporting
The EU Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) requires increased transparency on environmental and social impacts, but regeneration is still largely absent from mainstream ESG frameworks.
To move forward, policy incentives must support decentralized, small-scale, and nature-based economies, not just incremental corporate sustainability measures.
The next step? A shift from circularity to a deep transformation regenerates social and ecological systems.
To truly regenerate our economies and build a just and sustainable world, we need a systemic transformation. This transformation is both a psychological shift and a business revolution. It requires companies to recognize the (science of the) interconnectedness of ecological and social systems, and to internalize the value (or leave some well alone!) of socio-ecological goods in every decision made along the supply chain.
As we work toward this goal, we must remember that regeneration is not just a technical fix but a transformative shift in how we think, act, and value the world around us. This transformation must be driven by leaders who are willing to question the status quo, challenge traditional business models, and embrace a future where the well-being of people, the planet, and future generations is the ultimate measure of success.
Safe & Just Earth System Boundaries:
Gupta, J., Bai, X., Liverman, D. M., Rockström, J., Qin, D., Stewart-Koster, B., Rocha, J. C., Jacobson, L., Abrams, J. F., Andersen, L. S., Armstrong McKay, D. I., Bala, G., Bunn, S. E., Ciobanu, D., DeClerck, F., Ebi, K. L., Gifford, L., Gordon, C., Hasan, S., … Gentile, G. (2024). A just world on a safe planet: a Lancet Planetary Health-Earth Commission report on Earth-system boundaries, translations, and transformations. The Lancet Planetary Health. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2542-5196(24)00042-1
Gupta, J., Liverman, D., Prodani, K., Aldunce, P., Bai, X., Broadgate, W., Ciobanu, D., Gifford, L., Gordon, C., & Hurlbert, M. (2023). Earth system justice needed to identify and live within Earth system boundaries. Nature Sustainability, 1–9.
Other resources include the Stockholm Resilience Centre’s report Doing Business Within Planetary Boundaries, and Globaia.org
Does the energy transition pose a human rights issue? The E-Waste Column, Nov 24th 2024.
How can businesses protect forests and their biodiversity? The Just Transition Newsletter, Aug 22 2024.
Capra, Fritjof. (1996). The Web of Life: A New Synthesis of Mind and Matter. Flamingo.
Further research on decolonising circularity & supply chains:
Cabrales Salazar, O., Márquez Vargas, F., & Garzón Pascagaza E. J. (2021). Circular economy and reducing consumption from a decolonial approach. Cuadernos de Administración, 37(70), e5110905.
Isenhour C, Berry B and Victor E (2023). Circular economy disclaimers: Rethinking property relations at the end of cheap nature. Front. Sustain. 3:1007802. doi: 10.3389/frsus.2022.1007802
Beamer, K., Elkington, K., Souza, P., Tuma, A., Thorenz, A., Köhler, S., Kukea-Shultz, K., Kotubetey, K., & Winter, K. B. (2023). Island and Indigenous systems of circularity: how Hawaiʻi can inform the development of universal circular economy policy goals. Ecology and Society, Published Online: 2023-01-01 | Doi:10.5751/ES-13656-280109, 28(1). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-13656-280109
Fairphone Case Sources:
Fairphone, We have big plans for fair materials by 2030 - 14 March 2024: Angela, Impact Innovation
Causeartist, Case Study: Fairphone, the Ethical and Sustainable Smartphone Jan 17 2025
Fairphone, Don’t read our 2023 Impact Report. Read this instead - 7 June 2024: Monique, CIO
Fairphone, Supply Chain Engagement: from Risk to Impact, Nov 2021
Further resources on SaveSoil:
Further resources on Social Permaculture:
 | A guest post by
|