Suspension is the easy decision. The supplier failed a check, the buyer pulled the contract, the world moves on. Re-entry is where most NDPE programmes either deliver on their promise — that suppliers can change — or quietly admit they can't.
What twelve closed cases tell us
Over the past four years we've worked on twelve recovery cases that ended in re-admission. They span Indonesia, Malaysia, Colombia, and Honduras. They differ in scale, commodity, and original cause. But four conditions hold across all twelve.
- Root-cause acknowledgement signed by the operator, naming the specific failure and the specific people responsible.
- Independent baseline — fresh satellite imagery and a field visit dated after the suspension, never before.
- Time-bound corrective action plan with quarterly milestones, not annual ones.
- Community sign-off where any social grievance was involved, in writing, in the local language.
12
Re-admitted suppliers
14 mo
Median time from suspension to re-entry
4/12
Re-suspended within 24 months (early framework)
0/8
Re-suspended within 24 months (current framework)
The earlier framework failed
Our first four cases used a documentation-led framework — submit the plan, sign the commitment, re-enter on paper. All four were re-suspended within two years. The eight cases that followed used the framework above, and none have been re-suspended to date.
"Re-entry isn't a reward for paperwork. It's a recognition that something has actually changed."
Decision checklist
- Was the original failure named, in writing, by the operator?
- Is the baseline independent and post-suspension?
- Are corrective actions quarterly and falsifiable?
- If social: has the affected community confirmed the resolution?
All four 'yes' → re-entry. Any 'no' → continue recovery. We don't compromise on the four — and the data says you shouldn't either.