Hard questions
Five objections,
answered directly
We tested our own thesis against the strongest objections five kinds of reader would bring to it. Here is what each would say, and what we say back. The evidence for each answer is on the evidence page.
The NGO or trade union asks
Isn’t supplier-run due diligence just self-assessment with better branding?
Not if the verdict sits elsewhere. Audits paid for by the party being assessed report fewer violations, so we separate running the system from judging it: suppliers run it, independent parties verify it, and worker-reported information checks both. When one glove maker estimated the recruitment fees it owed its workers, it arrived at RM53 million; the independent consultant it appointed put the figure at RM136 million. Ownership of the system, not of the verdict.
The evidence →The NGO or trade union asks
Is an anonymous survey really worker voice?
It is a detection tool, not a substitute for organised workers. Anonymous channels surface what audits miss; they do not give workers power over what happens next. We use them for detection, and seek trade unions and worker organisations for governance, verification and remedy wherever they exist. Where they do not, we say so rather than claim otherwise.
The evidence →The general counsel asks
Doesn’t more information create more liability?
Unmanaged information does. A continuous stream of worker reports is discoverable, and what a company publishes about its controls can be held against it. So the design starts with counsel: what is recorded, what is disclosed, to whom and under what protection, including where local law, such as China’s 2026 supply chain security rules, restricts information gathering. Aggregated data for detection; a separate, consented route when a case must become evidence.
The evidence →The risk and strategy officer asks
Is enforcement real enough to justify the investment?
Enforcement is uneven, and market penalties for a labour scandal are brief. What is not uneven is the evidence customs and regulators now ask for, which cannot be built after goods are held. So we start by quantifying exposure by product, commodity and country — the revenue at risk and the remedy that would be owed to workers, which is usually what releases the goods — size the programme to that, and treat revenue reward as upside rather than as the case.
Size your exposure →The chief procurement officer asks
Who pays, and what about buyers?
Suppliers already pay for most audits, and three-quarters face at least one brand insisting on its own. One verified assessment used by many cuts that cost. Buyers carry their side through fair price, forecasts, lead times and payment terms, because those are what drive excessive hours and debt-financed recruitment. Partnership with consequence applies to them too.
The evidence →