Deal of The Day! Hurry Up, Grab the Special Discount - Save 25% - Ends In 00:00:00 Coupon code: SAVE25
Welcome to Pass4Success

- Free Preparation Discussions
Mail Us support@pass4success.com
Location US
Mob_nav_barsMENU

CIPS L4M4 Exam - Topic 2 Question 41 Discussion

What course of action should be taken when an audit of a supplier identifies evidence of human rights malpractice?
A) Immediately raise the issue with the supplier and jointly develop a timely action plan to be implemented before a repeat audit
B) Immediately halt all orders with the supplier, make a record of the violation in the supplier database, and switch to an alternative source of supply
C) Remove all business and inform press organisations, who will in turn bring the issue to the attention of formal governmental organisations who can take action
D) Allow the supplier to complete current orders placed, while pursuing an alternative source to change to as soon as approved

CIPS L4M4 Exam - Topic 2 Question 41 Discussion

Actual exam question for CIPS's L4M4 exam
Question #: 41
Topic #: 2
[All L4M4 Questions]

What course of action should be taken when an audit of a supplier identifies evidence of human rights malpractice?

Show Suggested Answer Hide Answer
Suggested Answer: A

Addressing human rights issues collaboratively by developing an action plan allows for improvement and correction. This approach is consistent with ethical sourcing principles, which encourage responsible intervention to correct and improve supply chain practices rather than punitive measures that may not lead to long-term change.


by Von at Oct 27, 2025, 10:36 PM

Limited Time Offer

25%

Off

Get Premium L4M4 Questions as Interactive Web-Based Practice Test or PDF

Contribute your Thoughts:

0/2000 characters
Submit Cancel
Jovita
5 months ago
D seems reasonable. We can't disrupt current orders.
upvoted 0 times
...
Alton
5 months ago
B makes sense. We can't support malpractice.
upvoted 0 times
...
Harris
6 months ago
I prefer C. We need to take a strong stand.
upvoted 0 times
...
Felicitas
6 months ago
I think A is the best option. Collaboration is key.
upvoted 0 times
...
Brendan
6 months ago
Definitely A! Collaboration is key for real change.
upvoted 0 times
...
Audra
7 months ago
D) makes sense, but how long can we wait?
upvoted 0 times
...
Belen
7 months ago
C) Wow, I can't believe some suppliers still do this!
upvoted 0 times
...
Malcom
7 months ago
B) is too extreme, we should give them a chance to improve.
upvoted 0 times
...
Christiane
7 months ago
A) seems like the best approach to fix things together.
upvoted 0 times
...
Reuben
7 months ago
Option A is the clear winner here. Collaboration and accountability are the keys to driving real, sustainable change.
upvoted 0 times
...
Elly
7 months ago
Haha, option D - "Hey, let's just ignore the human rights violations and keep the orders coming!" What could possibly go wrong?
upvoted 0 times
...
Asuncion
8 months ago
D? Really? That's just sweeping the problem under the rug. Not a good look for a company that claims to care about ethics.
upvoted 0 times
...
Zack
8 months ago
C is the way to go. Expose the supplier's misdeeds and let the authorities handle it. Transparency is key in these situations.
upvoted 0 times
...
Trinidad
8 months ago
I'd go with B. Cutting ties with the supplier and finding an alternative is the only way to ensure you're not complicit in their human rights violations.
upvoted 0 times
...
Ruthann
8 months ago
Option A seems like the most responsible approach. Addressing the issue directly with the supplier and working together to resolve it is the best way to drive positive change.
upvoted 0 times
...
Donette
8 months ago
I recall that we talked about the potential backlash of going public too quickly, so option C might not be the best first step.
upvoted 0 times
...
Lavonna
9 months ago
I feel like we practiced a similar question where we had to balance ethical concerns with business continuity. I wonder if option D is a good compromise?
upvoted 0 times
...
Noah
9 months ago
I'm not entirely sure, but I think option B might be too drastic without giving the supplier a chance to rectify the issue first.
upvoted 0 times
...
Theola
9 months ago
I remember discussing the importance of collaboration with suppliers during our case studies, so option A seems like a reasonable approach.
upvoted 0 times
...
Laurene
10 months ago
I'm not sure about option D. Allowing them to complete current orders while switching suppliers seems like it could just prolong the problem. We need to take a stronger stance on this.
upvoted 0 times
...
Dalene
10 months ago
I'm leaning towards option C. Bringing in press and governmental organizations could help put more pressure on the supplier to address the issues and ensure real change happens.
upvoted 0 times
...
Desirae
10 months ago
Option B seems like the safest bet to me. If we've found evidence of human rights violations, we need to act quickly to stop doing business with that supplier and find an alternative.
upvoted 0 times
...
Tony
10 months ago
I'm a bit confused by this question. Do we have any more details on the specific human rights malpractice that was identified? That could help me decide the best course of action.
upvoted 0 times
...
Sina
10 months ago
I think option A is the best approach here. It's important to work with the supplier to address the issue and develop a plan to fix it, rather than just cutting them off immediately.
upvoted 0 times
Doug
5 months ago
Option A builds trust and accountability.
upvoted 0 times
...
Jennie
5 months ago
Cutting ties might hurt more than help.
upvoted 0 times
...
Dorethea
8 months ago
I agree, option A shows a commitment to improvement.
upvoted 0 times
...
Rosalia
9 months ago
Exactly! We need to support ethical practices.
upvoted 0 times
...
Jackie
9 months ago
Yes, collaboration is key. We can help them change.
upvoted 0 times
...
...

Save Cancel