EiQ welcomes Selcuk Buyukozer to Advisory Board
EiQ is pleased to announce that Selcuk Buyukozer, Vice President of Social & Environmental Affairs (SEA) Americas at adidas, has joined our strategic Advisory Board.
Buyukozer is a long‑time leader in social and environmental strategy, supply chain compliance and responsible purchasing practices. Over a 25‑year career, he has built and led cross‑cultural teams that deliver measurable impact through risk‑based programs, regulatory reporting and stakeholder engagement. Selcuk helped shape adidas’ multi‑year SEA strategy; advanced tools for risk reduction; and championed responsible purchasing practices improvements. He has represented industry best practice as a board member of the Fair Labor Association and Fair Factories Clearinghouse for many years.
As an EiQ Advisory Board member, he brings deep strategic and operational experience, and a pragmatic, data‑driven perspective on embedding human rights due diligence at scale. He is based in Portland, Oregon.
Selcuk joins EiQ’s Advisory Board alongside Ian Spaulding, Paul Albright, Paul Campbell, Pamela Mar and Paulo Marques, strengthening our collective expertise in supply chain intelligence, compliance and sustainability.
We look forward to Selcuk’s insights as EiQ continues to empower businesses with data‑driven solutions for responsible sourcing and risk management.
Related Posts
Discover more insights from our blog.
The heat signal most supply chain programmes can't see
Heat stress is now an active supply chain due diligence issue. Why one climate signal reaches worker safety, food safety and continuity at once.
From compliance to connected risk management: what we learned at the EiQ Global Summit 2026
Key takeaways from the EiQ Global Summit 2026 in London: a rising regulatory bar, the case for connected risk management, and what AI will change about the work itself.
The myth of the safe sourcing market: why reputation does not equal risk data
Just how safe is a "safe" sourcing market? Reputation and heritage are not the same as risk data. The gap between them is dangerous.