Supply chain

Total proportion of spending on local suppliers

Note: Local suppliers are considered as those operating from the country of operation. They are classified as such by having a local address and, where appropriate, further registration as may be required by local authorities to recognise these companies officially (NINEA number for example in Senegal).


Proportion of spending on local suppliers


  2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Greenland 9 41 7 54 26
Ireland NA NA NA 11 6
Malta NA NA NA 7 31
Morocco NA 1 14 9 43
Nepal 0 0 98 42 NA
Norway NA 79 59 93 94
Senegal NA NA 1 11 5
Spain 72 81 87 87 100
United Kingdom 47 86 73 87 53

Note: We break down this data by country as our 'significant locations of operation'.


Completion of contractor engagement plan


  2013 2014 2015
Contractor engagement meetings 91 100 see note*

Note: *In the 2015 drilling programme we operated offshore activities and contracts via our well activities delegate ConocoPhillips (COP). Capricorn Senegal Limited (CSL) managed COP’s onshore contracts for shore base activities on their behalf. COP retained many relationships with their contractors from previous programmes and managed engagement of them directly including on HSE matters with support and assurance from Cairn. This was prescribed under the COP-CSL Delegation Agreement and Project Execution Plan. CSL maintained direct engagement with onshore contractors by provision of HSE requirements in contracts, providing selected training of local personnel (e.g. lifting and hoisting) and performing an onshore readiness assessment prior to commencing. This revealed some misalignment of HSE related standards by all contractors working for CSL directly or who have shore activities for servicing offshore assets. Cairn and COP consequently collaborated to implement monthly Contractor HSE Meetings at Dakar port aligning these with the offshore programme and introducing an onshore HSE inspection and observation programme across these shore-based contractors.

Cairn expects a UK North Sea standard of HSE performance across shore base operations as outlined in the Shore Base Guidelines issued to all contractors working on the asset. In order to encourage this standard of HSE culture and to recognise positive HSE behaviours and actions, Cairn runs a Safety Award system in the shore base. The Hazard Observation Card system is used to capture positive and negative HSE practices. The best of these is selected on a regular basis for recognition through small awards including watches, rucksacks and local supermarket vouchers.


New supplier screening


  2014 2015
Environmental 33 33
Impacts on society 22 33
Labour practices 22 33
Human rights 0 17

Note: Supplier screening data is only available from 2014 onwards.

Note: This data shows the percentage of significant new suppliers (any that require approval from Cairn’s Contracts Committee) that were screened for corporate responsibility risks in four different areas as shown, i.e. environmental, impacts on society, labour practices and human rights. This data is compiled by reviewing Cairn’s Contracts Committee records to identify new suppliers that Cairn considered selecting or contracting with during the reporting year. Tender and contract documentation for those suppliers are then reviewed to identify which CR risks are covered in the screening process for each one.

The methodology for compiling this data was improved in 2015: instead of only covering those suppliers that were considered relevant to this indicator, all suppliers were included. As a result the figures for 2014 have been restated and they have decreased. In 2015, 75% of suppliers that were not screened were data processing companies and suppliers of materials for which CR issues were not considered a particular risk.


Significant investment agreements and contracts that include human rights clauses or that underwent human rights screening


  2014 2015
Cairn total 0/0 1/14

Note: A significant investment agreement is defined as one that requires Board approval. This equates to one with a net expenditure in excess of US$1 million.

Note: Significant investment agreements and contracts are assessed against specified investment criteria, which include an assessment of potential corporate responsibility, including human rights, and risks involved with the opportunity. The Investment Proposal (IP) summarises the outcome of the review (including the CR assessment), the recommended terms of the offer and how the opportunity would be managed in the event of success. These IPs are signed off by all Functional Department Heads, the Chief Operating Officer (COO) on behalf of the Management Team (MT) and the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) on behalf of the Executive Team (ET).

All operations are screened broadly for human rights issues at the investment proposal stage. In this indicator we include only those that make specific reference to human rights.

Note: None of the investment proposals approved in 2014 had particular human rights risks and so no specific human rights clauses were included in them. They were all UK or Norway investments.

Note: In 2015, one investment proposal included specific reference to human rights. Four others, although not counted in the data, made specific reference to our commitment to social responsibilities including local community rights, grievance procedures and local involvement/benefits.

Download PDF

Create a PDF of this section to take away.

Download PDF